Why do you believe in God? (1 Viewer)

[josefrees]

If I am fallacious show me my errors.

In the meantime, tell me how come the sun rises.

Then, how?

Then, how?

Then, how?

Then, how?

I can prove that you fundamentally know nothing with one word.

So you don't understand that the sun actually doesn't rise? It is the rotation of the Earth that makes it appear to be rising? And you really want to argue science?

Okay you got the first how out of the way, keep going.

 

[Jayrok]

How long was it where civilizations around the planet thought a solar eclipse was the "gods" expressing anger/displeasure about something they were doing? Folks just didn't understand what was actually happening...so in their accounts, it became a "vengeful God" punishing them and/or an omen for some calamity to come. Did solar eclipses happen in the past? I HOPE you'd agree with me and say 'yes.' Have people's understanding of said eclipses evolved and/or been refined as our knowledge about science/physics/astronomy has improved? Yes.

That's where you and I diverge in our beliefs. You believe that ancient writings are just fantastic fiction...probably meant to instill fear and control over a population. While I believe that many of the events that were written actually occurred...only that said witnesses didn't understand what they were seeing/experiencing, and took their best shot at interpretation. Which we've all been doing for thousands of years, ever since.

Do you believe that the Israelites from Judah being conquered by Nebuchadnezzar was the result of God actually punishing them for worshipping false gods, as the Bible indicates, or was that just how the writer of the day saw it.. as in your other examples such as the flood and a solar eclipse?

If you believe that events that were written actually occurred, but were sensationalized by writers of the day with their best shot at interpretation, how does this apply to a physical resurrection of the dead by Jesus? Did disciples actually see a risen Jesus in physical form or were they just visions brought on through hope of a risen Christ (a reasonable interpretation)?

 

[josefrees]

Josefrees is apparently making Aquinas' argument: that there has to be a "beginning" at some point, therefore God. I say "apparently" because his writing style is somewhat convoluted.

The problem with Aquinas' argument, from an atheist perspective, is that the existence of God does not in itself represent a beginning. It only leads to more "before" questions, such as who created God?, what came before God?, etc. and if your answer is that God was always there, then why couldn't that apply to existence as well?

Which is why I repeat that there appears to be no way to logically prove God's existence.

You call it convoluted I call it not needing 1000 words to make a simple point. The difference between a god existing for all time and existence existing for all time is one is above nature (supernatural) while the other is in fact the entirety of nature. To use the common trope, it is trying to apply the limits of the watch to the watchmaker.

Just because you cannot walk the logical tightrope does not mean that no one can.

In any case, one cannot prove either side and accepting anything other than ignorance requires belief.

 

[datonn]

How long was it where civilizations around the planet thought a solar eclipse was the "gods" expressing anger/displeasure about something they were doing? Folks just didn't understand what was actually happening...so in their accounts, it became a "vengeful God" punishing them and/or an omen for some calamity to come. Did solar eclipses happen in the past? I HOPE you'd agree with me and say 'yes.' Have people's understanding of said eclipses evolved and/or been refined as our knowledge about science/physics/astronomy has improved? Yes.

That's where you and I diverge in our beliefs. You believe that ancient writings are just fantastic fiction...probably meant to instill fear and control over a population. While I believe that many of the events that were written actually occurred...only that said witnesses didn't understand what they were seeing/experiencing, and took their best shot at interpretation. Which we've all been doing for thousands of years, ever since.

Do you believe that the Israelites from Judah being conquered by Nebuchadnezzar was the result of God actually punishing them for worshipping false gods, as the Bible indicates, or was that just how the writer of the day saw it.. as in your other examples such as the flood and a solar eclipse?

If you believe that events that were written actually occurred, but were sensationalized by writers of the day with their best shot at interpretation, how does this apply to a physical resurrection of the dead by Jesus? Did disciples actually see a risen Jesus in physical form or were they just visions brought on through hope of a risen Christ (a reasonable interpretation)?

A Creator punishing its creation for not following seemingly simple/easy instructions (i.e. do not eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge)? 100% plausible. I'd even say probable...though I can't produce evidence other than scripture to back that up, which will just end up derailing the conversation.

A risen Jesus in physical form...going into the sky (hmm...kind of like...Elijah?!). Also plausible, to me. Though I would suppose it would depend upon how one defines "life." More specifically, when life begins and ends. ~2,000 years ago, for example, how many people would come back to what we call "life" after their hearts stopped beating?! How many tens of thousands of people come back to "life" today...sometimes several hours after their heart stops beating? How many people are brought back to "life" minutes/hours after they've taken their last breath, submerged underwater?

What's to say that our human bodies aren't just a "shell" or "stage" of life? That life is actually what resides inside said body (not the body itself)? Goodness knows many out there have encountered "beings" that don't have bodies as we know them. But believing in things such as ghost/spirits is looney-tunes...while believing in a white-haired, white-skinned "grandpa" in the clouds who has nothing better to do than listen to the chronic, (mostly) selfish, self-centered requests of billions of other beings on planet Earth isn't?!

 

[jomar]

To the believer, there is no greater hope. Atheism offers no such hope.

Hope in life after death and the belief that having faith makes for a better life on earth are reasons many people believe in God.

isn't it possible that there is something beyond this life yet still no God? I don't see why not.....maybe someone can show me why this isn't possible

of course its possible. there's just absolutely no evidence of it. big difference between possible and likely

I'd agree that its not likely, however it is possible and therefore an atheist could have hope for an afterlife. Jayrok had stated that atheism offers no such hope.

I consider myself an atheist of sorts as I have no idea if there is a god or not, although I'd put it at 99.99% no probability. same thing for the afterlife for me, I have no idea what happens when we die but I can hope there is something more and in fact I might give it a slightly higher chance at 99.5% there is nothing more.

 

[Jayrok]

How long was it where civilizations around the planet thought a solar eclipse was the "gods" expressing anger/displeasure about something they were doing? Folks just didn't understand what was actually happening...so in their accounts, it became a "vengeful God" punishing them and/or an omen for some calamity to come. Did solar eclipses happen in the past? I HOPE you'd agree with me and say 'yes.' Have people's understanding of said eclipses evolved and/or been refined as our knowledge about science/physics/astronomy has improved? Yes.

That's where you and I diverge in our beliefs. You believe that ancient writings are just fantastic fiction...probably meant to instill fear and control over a population. While I believe that many of the events that were written actually occurred...only that said witnesses didn't understand what they were seeing/experiencing, and took their best shot at interpretation. Which we've all been doing for thousands of years, ever since.

Do you believe that the Israelites from Judah being conquered by Nebuchadnezzar was the result of God actually punishing them for worshipping false gods, as the Bible indicates, or was that just how the writer of the day saw it.. as in your other examples such as the flood and a solar eclipse?

If you believe that events that were written actually occurred, but were sensationalized by writers of the day with their best shot at interpretation, how does this apply to a physical resurrection of the dead by Jesus? Did disciples actually see a risen Jesus in physical form or were they just visions brought on through hope of a risen Christ (a reasonable interpretation)?

A Creator punishing its creation for not following seemingly simple/easy instructions (i.e. do not eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge)? 100% plausible. I'd even say probable...though I can't produce evidence other than scripture to back that up, which will just end up derailing the conversation.

A risen Jesus in physical form...going into the sky (hmm...kind of like...Elijah?!). Also plausible, to me. Though I would suppose it would depend upon how one defines "life." More specifically, when life begins and ends. ~2,000 years ago, for example, how many people would come back to what we call "life" after their hearts stopped beating?! How many tens of thousands of people come back to "life" today...sometimes several hours after their heart stops beating? How many people are brought back to "life" minutes/hours after they've taken their last breath, submerged underwater?

What's to say that our human bodies aren't just a "shell" or "stage" of life? That life is actually what resides inside said body (not the body itself)? Goodness knows many out there have encountered "beings" that don't have bodies as we know them. But believing in things such as ghost/spirits is looney-tunes...while believing in a white-haired, white-skinned "grandpa" in the clouds who has nothing better to do than listen to the chronic, (mostly) selfish, self-centered requests of billions of other beings on planet Earth isn't?!

Jesus was not resurrected, but resuscitated?

 

[datonn]

How long was it where civilizations around the planet thought a solar eclipse was the "gods" expressing anger/displeasure about something they were doing? Folks just didn't understand what was actually happening...so in their accounts, it became a "vengeful God" punishing them and/or an omen for some calamity to come. Did solar eclipses happen in the past? I HOPE you'd agree with me and say 'yes.' Have people's understanding of said eclipses evolved and/or been refined as our knowledge about science/physics/astronomy has improved? Yes.

That's where you and I diverge in our beliefs. You believe that ancient writings are just fantastic fiction...probably meant to instill fear and control over a population. While I believe that many of the events that were written actually occurred...only that said witnesses didn't understand what they were seeing/experiencing, and took their best shot at interpretation. Which we've all been doing for thousands of years, ever since.

Do you believe that the Israelites from Judah being conquered by Nebuchadnezzar was the result of God actually punishing them for worshipping false gods, as the Bible indicates, or was that just how the writer of the day saw it.. as in your other examples such as the flood and a solar eclipse?

If you believe that events that were written actually occurred, but were sensationalized by writers of the day with their best shot at interpretation, how does this apply to a physical resurrection of the dead by Jesus? Did disciples actually see a risen Jesus in physical form or were they just visions brought on through hope of a risen Christ (a reasonable interpretation)?

A Creator punishing its creation for not following seemingly simple/easy instructions (i.e. do not eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge)? 100% plausible. I'd even say probable...though I can't produce evidence other than scripture to back that up, which will just end up derailing the conversation.

A risen Jesus in physical form...going into the sky (hmm...kind of like...Elijah?!). Also plausible, to me. Though I would suppose it would depend upon how one defines "life." More specifically, when life begins and ends. ~2,000 years ago, for example, how many people would come back to what we call "life" after their hearts stopped beating?! How many tens of thousands of people come back to "life" today...sometimes several hours after their heart stops beating? How many people are brought back to "life" minutes/hours after they've taken their last breath, submerged underwater?

What's to say that our human bodies aren't just a "shell" or "stage" of life? That life is actually what resides inside said body (not the body itself)? Goodness knows many out there have encountered "beings" that don't have bodies as we know them. But believing in things such as ghost/spirits is looney-tunes...while believing in a white-haired, white-skinned "grandpa" in the clouds who has nothing better to do than listen to the chronic, (mostly) selfish, self-centered requests of billions of other beings on planet Earth isn't?!

Jesus was not resurrected, but resuscitated?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFcqGGMPc3k

 

[Jayrok]

How long was it where civilizations around the planet thought a solar eclipse was the "gods" expressing anger/displeasure about something they were doing? Folks just didn't understand what was actually happening...so in their accounts, it became a "vengeful God" punishing them and/or an omen for some calamity to come. Did solar eclipses happen in the past? I HOPE you'd agree with me and say 'yes.' Have people's understanding of said eclipses evolved and/or been refined as our knowledge about science/physics/astronomy has improved? Yes.

That's where you and I diverge in our beliefs. You believe that ancient writings are just fantastic fiction...probably meant to instill fear and control over a population. While I believe that many of the events that were written actually occurred...only that said witnesses didn't understand what they were seeing/experiencing, and took their best shot at interpretation. Which we've all been doing for thousands of years, ever since.

Do you believe that the Israelites from Judah being conquered by Nebuchadnezzar was the result of God actually punishing them for worshipping false gods, as the Bible indicates, or was that just how the writer of the day saw it.. as in your other examples such as the flood and a solar eclipse?

If you believe that events that were written actually occurred, but were sensationalized by writers of the day with their best shot at interpretation, how does this apply to a physical resurrection of the dead by Jesus? Did disciples actually see a risen Jesus in physical form or were they just visions brought on through hope of a risen Christ (a reasonable interpretation)?

A Creator punishing its creation for not following seemingly simple/easy instructions (i.e. do not eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge)? 100% plausible. I'd even say probable...though I can't produce evidence other than scripture to back that up, which will just end up derailing the conversation.

A risen Jesus in physical form...going into the sky (hmm...kind of like...Elijah?!). Also plausible, to me. Though I would suppose it would depend upon how one defines "life." More specifically, when life begins and ends. ~2,000 years ago, for example, how many people would come back to what we call "life" after their hearts stopped beating?! How many tens of thousands of people come back to "life" today...sometimes several hours after their heart stops beating? How many people are brought back to "life" minutes/hours after they've taken their last breath, submerged underwater?

What's to say that our human bodies aren't just a "shell" or "stage" of life? That life is actually what resides inside said body (not the body itself)? Goodness knows many out there have encountered "beings" that don't have bodies as we know them. But believing in things such as ghost/spirits is looney-tunes...while believing in a white-haired, white-skinned "grandpa" in the clouds who has nothing better to do than listen to the chronic, (mostly) selfish, self-centered requests of billions of other beings on planet Earth isn't?!

Jesus was not resurrected, but resuscitated?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFcqGGMPc3k

do you see a difference in the two?

 

[NCCommish]

We are an insignificant species on an insignificant planet on the outer edge of an insignificant galaxy. Our hubris demands we be more than that. The universe doesn't care.

NCCommish: your response is precisely why I DO believe in a Creator. Do I believe in a white haired, white skinned grandpa sitting up in some cloud...watching all our lives intently, giving us a little assist or nudge when we need it, or hearing our prayers? No. But I do believe in panspermia. That Earth was "seeded" with life. Could have been by dumb-luck, could have been by design (I believe the latter). And that other life has given our planet, our species, a "nudge" from time to time. And probably within the next few hundred years, we'll be doing the same thing. Seeding some other planet/moon, either in our own solar system or another solar system, with life. "Creating" life on said worlds. The question is: will we be "God" to that world? Will people refer to "pillars of fire from the sky" or "angels" to describe what they were seeing...when our technology (thousands of years from now) will be thousands of years ahead of their own?

I'll agree with you. Humans aren't unique/special in the universe (multiverse?). Just one of probably millions/billions of intelligent species out there. Earth isn't unique either, in the big scheme of things. Nor is the Milky Way. But that leads me to suspect that the seeds of life found their way to Earth and evolved from other forms of life, not originating from Earth. And if life got here from "parts unknown," then to me, that introduces at least the potential for said seeds of life to be put here on purpose. Via a "Creator." Whether you call that Creator "God" or "Bob" or "Nyuck-Nyuck" doesn't much matter to me.

I get what you are saying but the reality is no creator needed. We know how life could have ended up here. Heck it could have come from Mars. But it doesn't take a conscious hand to do it. It just takes a meteor strike that transfers a simple chain of molecules. That's it. Introducing a maker doesn't make the process less complicated it complicates it infinitely, especially if we ascribe magical powers to that maker as we do with God.

All true. That said, I believe that much of our planet's ancient writings (i.e. the Bible) aren't just the result of someone's creative writing final after an all-night bender. Such as Elijah being taken up into the sky in a "pillar of fire" (sure sounds like what we might refer to in modern times as a "rocket" or "spacecraft"). Or the flood of Noah's time (not covering the entire planet...but covering the entire region known to the people of the region and the author of the writings at that time). Or life on Earth being created in stages, as opposed to all those folks "clinging to their religion and guns," aka the idea that Creation occurred over ~144 hours (sigh).

If people were recalling and writing about events that ACTUALLY HAPPENED, the problem arises from:

1. People not understanding what they were seeing/experiencing (i.e. technology thousands/millions of years more advanced)

2. Other people reading said writings, and having the same problem

How long was it where civilizations around the planet thought a solar eclipse was the "gods" expressing anger/displeasure about something they were doing? Folks just didn't understand what was actually happening...so in their accounts, it became a "vengeful God" punishing them and/or an omen for some calamity to come. Did solar eclipses happen in the past? I HOPE you'd agree with me and say 'yes.' Have people's understanding of said eclipses evolved and/or been refined as our knowledge about science/physics/astronomy has improved? Yes.

That's where you and I diverge in our beliefs. You believe that ancient writings are just fantastic fiction...probably meant to instill fear and control over a population. While I believe that many of the events that were written actually occurred...only that said witnesses didn't understand what they were seeing/experiencing, and took their best shot at interpretation. Which we've all been doing for thousands of years, ever since.

The problem with the advanced technology angle is still the same as the UFO angle today. Distance and energy needed to transverse it. We are really in the sticks out here. Someone may have invented FTL travel. We may even invent it down the road. But why come here? There would be no way to know life was here. Until 60 years ago we weren't transmitting. So this unremarkable rock causes you to travel tens or hundreds of light years and expend that energy for what reason? Didn't seem to come here to mine the place. Didn't leave a bit of evidence. It's possible. It's possible this computer will turn into a giraffe. But it's highly unlikely.

 

[NCCommish]

If I am fallacious show me my errors.

In the meantime, tell me how come the sun rises.

Then, how?

Then, how?

Then, how?

Then, how?

I can prove that you fundamentally know nothing with one word.

So you don't understand that the sun actually doesn't rise? It is the rotation of the Earth that makes it appear to be rising? And you really want to argue science?

Okay you got the first how out of the way, keep going.

I answered the only question you actually asked.

 

[Politician Spock]

I thought you weren't going to challenge people's beliefs? Did I misread the OP?

What I wrote was from an atheist perspective regarding logical proof for God. I am not challenging anyone's beliefs. I am only making the point that there is no means to prove or disprove God. It's a matter of faith.

You start religion threads acting just curious and genuinely interested in people's beliefs and then you feel the need to reply to their opinions with "points" (read: your opinions) that go against them. It's a trolling approach and you're better than that. JMO

wut

 

[josefrees]

Why does an all powerful all knowing creator need to even interact with its creation? The creator has the power and knowledge to have its creation do as the creator wants prior to creating it.

The wonderful thing about the Testaments is how pliable they are. Especially when it comes to pre-man where you get very little information, turning the creation story into a metaphor for modern scientific theory is extremely easy. I just learned that Adam and man is the same word in hebrew. Makes the metaphorical and allegorical angles nearly limitless.

 

[josefrees]

"Then" denotes the answer to previous question

 

[NCCommish]

Apparently someone gets better drugs than I do.

 

[Black Box]

Josefrees is apparently making Aquinas' argument: that there has to be a "beginning" at some point, therefore God. I say "apparently" because his writing style is somewhat convoluted.

The problem with Aquinas' argument, from an atheist perspective, is that the existence of God does not in itself represent a beginning. It only leads to more "before" questions, such as who created God?, what came before God?, etc. and if your answer is that God was always there, then why couldn't that apply to existence as well?

Which is why I repeat that there appears to be no way to logically prove God's existence.

I don't think that is Aquinas' argument, nor how he reaches his conclusion. Rather it is rooted in Aristotle's metaphysics. Give it a look up, it is interesting.

 

[josefrees]

Apparently someone gets better drugs than I do.

Haha it is called the Holy Spirit my friend!!

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Oh yeah....... well......... nah. not gonna do it.

 

[datonn]

We are an insignificant species on an insignificant planet on the outer edge of an insignificant galaxy. Our hubris demands we be more than that. The universe doesn't care.

NCCommish: your response is precisely why I DO believe in a Creator. Do I believe in a white haired, white skinned grandpa sitting up in some cloud...watching all our lives intently, giving us a little assist or nudge when we need it, or hearing our prayers? No. But I do believe in panspermia. That Earth was "seeded" with life. Could have been by dumb-luck, could have been by design (I believe the latter). And that other life has given our planet, our species, a "nudge" from time to time. And probably within the next few hundred years, we'll be doing the same thing. Seeding some other planet/moon, either in our own solar system or another solar system, with life. "Creating" life on said worlds. The question is: will we be "God" to that world? Will people refer to "pillars of fire from the sky" or "angels" to describe what they were seeing...when our technology (thousands of years from now) will be thousands of years ahead of their own?

I'll agree with you. Humans aren't unique/special in the universe (multiverse?). Just one of probably millions/billions of intelligent species out there. Earth isn't unique either, in the big scheme of things. Nor is the Milky Way. But that leads me to suspect that the seeds of life found their way to Earth and evolved from other forms of life, not originating from Earth. And if life got here from "parts unknown," then to me, that introduces at least the potential for said seeds of life to be put here on purpose. Via a "Creator." Whether you call that Creator "God" or "Bob" or "Nyuck-Nyuck" doesn't much matter to me.

I get what you are saying but the reality is no creator needed. We know how life could have ended up here. Heck it could have come from Mars. But it doesn't take a conscious hand to do it. It just takes a meteor strike that transfers a simple chain of molecules. That's it. Introducing a maker doesn't make the process less complicated it complicates it infinitely, especially if we ascribe magical powers to that maker as we do with God.

All true. That said, I believe that much of our planet's ancient writings (i.e. the Bible) aren't just the result of someone's creative writing final after an all-night bender. Such as Elijah being taken up into the sky in a "pillar of fire" (sure sounds like what we might refer to in modern times as a "rocket" or "spacecraft"). Or the flood of Noah's time (not covering the entire planet...but covering the entire region known to the people of the region and the author of the writings at that time). Or life on Earth being created in stages, as opposed to all those folks "clinging to their religion and guns," aka the idea that Creation occurred over ~144 hours (sigh).

If people were recalling and writing about events that ACTUALLY HAPPENED, the problem arises from:

1. People not understanding what they were seeing/experiencing (i.e. technology thousands/millions of years more advanced)

2. Other people reading said writings, and having the same problem

How long was it where civilizations around the planet thought a solar eclipse was the "gods" expressing anger/displeasure about something they were doing? Folks just didn't understand what was actually happening...so in their accounts, it became a "vengeful God" punishing them and/or an omen for some calamity to come. Did solar eclipses happen in the past? I HOPE you'd agree with me and say 'yes.' Have people's understanding of said eclipses evolved and/or been refined as our knowledge about science/physics/astronomy has improved? Yes.

That's where you and I diverge in our beliefs. You believe that ancient writings are just fantastic fiction...probably meant to instill fear and control over a population. While I believe that many of the events that were written actually occurred...only that said witnesses didn't understand what they were seeing/experiencing, and took their best shot at interpretation. Which we've all been doing for thousands of years, ever since.

The problem with the advanced technology angle is still the same as the UFO angle today. Distance and energy needed to transverse it. We are really in the sticks out here. Someone may have invented FTL travel. We may even invent it down the road. But why come here? There would be no way to know life was here. Until 60 years ago we weren't transmitting. So this unremarkable rock causes you to travel tens or hundreds of light years and expend that energy for what reason? Didn't seem to come here to mine the place. Didn't leave a bit of evidence. It's possible. It's possible this computer will turn into a giraffe. But it's highly unlikely.

Again, very possibly true. If I answered in any way other than to say "I don't know," I'd be trying to manufacturer an answer that could easily have holes poked into it.

That said, why have we (Earthlings) sent spacecraft to planets and moons around our own solar system that are believed to not possess life (at least intelligent life)? Why are we scanning distant galaxies and solar systems, which have given us zero indication that (intelligent) life exists on them?

Without something on the order of wormholes, or travel at speeds in excess of the speed of light, or ???, I'm with you. But think of how far we've come in the past ~60 years. Now imagine you could add 100,000...10,000,000 years of technological advances to that. I'm not saying it IS. I'm merely saying that it is possible/plausible. So for me to answer "it is" or "it isn't" would be a little short-sighted/naive. IMHO.

 

[mon]

I certainly agree that avoiding eternal punishment is no reason to follow. I admire your desire to be a good moral person, but why can't you have failth? Is it because you see no proof that there is a god?

Faith in what though? Not being snippy, that is a serious question. I'd have to believe in at least one of the holy writings, that they are at least partially correct, in order to believe in god, in my mind. At least, that would give me some semblence of a reason to. As far as testimony goes, I feel that many people can both believe and even give testimony without it having to be from God, even if they believe it is. Which is why I say deism is attractive, because it is one way that I could reconcile a belief in God with the world I see, as well as my belief having read many of the holy writings that they are works of men, not god.

But I honestly do agree with something you said earlier, that it isn't about proof. That's why I keep engaging in these conversations, and don't close the door. I need something but it doesn't have to be necessarily physical or scientifically provable evidence. But I need something to base a belief on, and I have not found that something to date. (FWIW, I was raised in a very religous household, reading the bible daily in many cases, loads of prayer, so it's not a lack of knowledge or trying.)

Common Sense tells you to love your neighbors as yourself? To turn the other cheek? To let people steal from you? To love your enemies?

Yes, I believe morals and common sense both could easily have arisen from the same evolutionary process that humans did. When people live in a group, having a set of rules or principles that may seem counter-productive to the self can help ensure longer life and great chance to pass on those rules (morals) to offspring.

PM sent.

 

[timschochet]

I thought you weren't going to challenge people's beliefs? Did I misread the OP?

What I wrote was from an atheist perspective regarding logical proof for God. I am not challenging anyone's beliefs. I am only making the point that there is no means to prove or disprove God. It's a matter of faith.

You start religion threads acting just curious and genuinely interested in people's beliefs and then you feel the need to reply to their opinions with "points" (read: your opinions) that go against them. It's a trolling approach and you're better than that. JMO

wut

So that's the only part that you disagree with?

 

[timschochet]

Josefrees is apparently making Aquinas' argument: that there has to be a "beginning" at some point, therefore God. I say "apparently" because his writing style is somewhat convoluted.

The problem with Aquinas' argument, from an atheist perspective, is that the existence of God does not in itself represent a beginning. It only leads to more "before" questions, such as who created God?, what came before God?, etc. and if your answer is that God was always there, then why couldn't that apply to existence as well?

Which is why I repeat that there appears to be no way to logically prove God's existence.

I don't think that is Aquinas' argument, nor how he reaches his conclusion. Rather it is rooted in Aristotle's metaphysics. Give it a look up, it is interesting.

I have. I was paraphrasing, describing the essence of Aquinas' argument (at least IMO.)

 

[NCCommish]

We are an insignificant species on an insignificant planet on the outer edge of an insignificant galaxy. Our hubris demands we be more than that. The universe doesn't care.

NCCommish: your response is precisely why I DO believe in a Creator. Do I believe in a white haired, white skinned grandpa sitting up in some cloud...watching all our lives intently, giving us a little assist or nudge when we need it, or hearing our prayers? No. But I do believe in panspermia. That Earth was "seeded" with life. Could have been by dumb-luck, could have been by design (I believe the latter). And that other life has given our planet, our species, a "nudge" from time to time. And probably within the next few hundred years, we'll be doing the same thing. Seeding some other planet/moon, either in our own solar system or another solar system, with life. "Creating" life on said worlds. The question is: will we be "God" to that world? Will people refer to "pillars of fire from the sky" or "angels" to describe what they were seeing...when our technology (thousands of years from now) will be thousands of years ahead of their own?

I'll agree with you. Humans aren't unique/special in the universe (multiverse?). Just one of probably millions/billions of intelligent species out there. Earth isn't unique either, in the big scheme of things. Nor is the Milky Way. But that leads me to suspect that the seeds of life found their way to Earth and evolved from other forms of life, not originating from Earth. And if life got here from "parts unknown," then to me, that introduces at least the potential for said seeds of life to be put here on purpose. Via a "Creator." Whether you call that Creator "God" or "Bob" or "Nyuck-Nyuck" doesn't much matter to me.

I get what you are saying but the reality is no creator needed. We know how life could have ended up here. Heck it could have come from Mars. But it doesn't take a conscious hand to do it. It just takes a meteor strike that transfers a simple chain of molecules. That's it. Introducing a maker doesn't make the process less complicated it complicates it infinitely, especially if we ascribe magical powers to that maker as we do with God.

All true. That said, I believe that much of our planet's ancient writings (i.e. the Bible) aren't just the result of someone's creative writing final after an all-night bender. Such as Elijah being taken up into the sky in a "pillar of fire" (sure sounds like what we might refer to in modern times as a "rocket" or "spacecraft"). Or the flood of Noah's time (not covering the entire planet...but covering the entire region known to the people of the region and the author of the writings at that time). Or life on Earth being created in stages, as opposed to all those folks "clinging to their religion and guns," aka the idea that Creation occurred over ~144 hours (sigh).

If people were recalling and writing about events that ACTUALLY HAPPENED, the problem arises from:

1. People not understanding what they were seeing/experiencing (i.e. technology thousands/millions of years more advanced)

2. Other people reading said writings, and having the same problem

How long was it where civilizations around the planet thought a solar eclipse was the "gods" expressing anger/displeasure about something they were doing? Folks just didn't understand what was actually happening...so in their accounts, it became a "vengeful God" punishing them and/or an omen for some calamity to come. Did solar eclipses happen in the past? I HOPE you'd agree with me and say 'yes.' Have people's understanding of said eclipses evolved and/or been refined as our knowledge about science/physics/astronomy has improved? Yes.

That's where you and I diverge in our beliefs. You believe that ancient writings are just fantastic fiction...probably meant to instill fear and control over a population. While I believe that many of the events that were written actually occurred...only that said witnesses didn't understand what they were seeing/experiencing, and took their best shot at interpretation. Which we've all been doing for thousands of years, ever since.

The problem with the advanced technology angle is still the same as the UFO angle today. Distance and energy needed to transverse it. We are really in the sticks out here. Someone may have invented FTL travel. We may even invent it down the road. But why come here? There would be no way to know life was here. Until 60 years ago we weren't transmitting. So this unremarkable rock causes you to travel tens or hundreds of light years and expend that energy for what reason? Didn't seem to come here to mine the place. Didn't leave a bit of evidence. It's possible. It's possible this computer will turn into a giraffe. But it's highly unlikely.

Again, very possibly true. If I answered in any way other than to say "I don't know," I'd be trying to manufacturer an answer that could easily have holes poked into it.

That said, why have we (Earthlings) sent spacecraft to planets and moons around our own solar system that are believed to not possess life (at least intelligent life)? Why are we scanning distant galaxies and solar systems, which have given us zero indication that (intelligent) life exists on them?

Without something on the order of wormholes, or travel at speeds in excess of the speed of light, or ???, I'm with you. But think of how far we've come in the past ~60 years. Now imagine you could add 100,000...10,000,000 years of technological advances to that. I'm not saying it IS. I'm merely saying that it is possible/plausible. So for me to answer "it is" or "it isn't" would be a little short-sighted/naive. IMHO.

We are curious and we explore. So would other advanced species I assume. But going to the Moon or Mars is a lot different than traveling dozens or hundreds of light years. They are right next store. The nearest star to us that we think may have a rocky planet that may support our kind of life is 25 trillion miles away which is only 4.3 light years. And we have no way of knowing if it is what we think it is.

 

[timschochet]

Josefrees is apparently making Aquinas' argument: that there has to be a "beginning" at some point, therefore God. I say "apparently" because his writing style is somewhat convoluted.

The problem with Aquinas' argument, from an atheist perspective, is that the existence of God does not in itself represent a beginning. It only leads to more "before" questions, such as who created God?, what came before God?, etc. and if your answer is that God was always there, then why couldn't that apply to existence as well?

Which is why I repeat that there appears to be no way to logically prove God's existence.

You call it convoluted I call it not needing 1000 words to make a simple point.The difference between a god existing for all time and existence existing for all time is one is above nature (supernatural) while the other is in fact the entirety of nature. To use the common trope, it is trying to apply the limits of the watch to the watchmaker.

Just because you cannot walk the logical tightrope does not mean that no one can.

In any case, one cannot prove either side and accepting anything other than ignorance requires belief.

The bolded part of your last sentence was the main point I was trying to make, so I'm glad we agree. Obviously I find great contradictions in the rest of your remarks. You cannot logically use the watch to determine the existence of a watchmaker without using the watchmaker to determine the existence of a creator of the watchmaker.

 

[CurlyNight]

I wasn't raised in any religion but was raised that there is a God, creator of all, and the basic commandments. My family never aligned themselves with a religion but they do take the part of being good in God's eyes from them.

I sometimes watch Jimmy Swaggart just in shock about how he knocks down other religions including catholicism, protestants, methodests, etc other than his belief with his expositors bible. I can't believe how much money they make off of the you are giving to God when you give to that family center. Huh? Ok, it's money to pay your bills AND line your pockets which is lives VERY nicely from. It's a good channel for me to get a chuckle out of.

So why not believe in God if there is a doubt? It gives you faith and hope. You don't need to go to a building to be near Him. You don't need to read the bible to get that and all it's bazillion stories of who did what and such, but for those who are in doubt, why not err on this side. Makes life easier. You can't turn everything into a science experiment.

 

[josefrees]

You are not perceiving my meaning properly. My point is not simply the watchmaker trope and in fact my example is answering your question. That is, you are trying to apply the creations rules to the creator. The creation relies on causality. The creator, not necessarily. The watch relies on gears and springs. The watchmaker, not necessarily.

Off course you can just synthesize infinite causation and a god by making god=infinity

 

[NCCommish]

Josefrees is apparently making Aquinas' argument: that there has to be a "beginning" at some point, therefore God. I say "apparently" because his writing style is somewhat convoluted.

The problem with Aquinas' argument, from an atheist perspective, is that the existence of God does not in itself represent a beginning. It only leads to more "before" questions, such as who created God?, what came before God?, etc. and if your answer is that God was always there, then why couldn't that apply to existence as well?

Which is why I repeat that there appears to be no way to logically prove God's existence.

You call it convoluted I call it not needing 1000 words to make a simple point.The difference between a god existing for all time and existence existing for all time is one is above nature (supernatural) while the other is in fact the entirety of nature. To use the common trope, it is trying to apply the limits of the watch to the watchmaker.

Just because you cannot walk the logical tightrope does not mean that no one can.

In any case, one cannot prove either side and accepting anything other than ignorance requires belief.

The whole watchmaker thing falls apart when you realize how truly haphazard the development was. The human eye for example. Boy do the watchmaker advocates love the eye. It is not this perfect elegant invention. It really sucks for beings that live on dry land. It is given to failure due to cataracts, diabetes, etc. It is haphazard just as one would expect from something created mostly by chance mutations.

 

[Politician Spock]

I thought you weren't going to challenge people's beliefs? Did I misread the OP?

What I wrote was from an atheist perspective regarding logical proof for God. I am not challenging anyone's beliefs. I am only making the point that there is no means to prove or disprove God. It's a matter of faith.

You start religion threads acting just curious and genuinely interested in people's beliefs and then you feel the need to reply to their opinions with "points" (read: your opinions) that go against them. It's a trolling approach and you're better than that. JMO

wut

So that's the only part that you disagree with?

You're an attention whore.

And I'm easily fascinated.

Every thread you post in is like an episode of Star Trek where they encounter a strange new world.

 

[dgreen]

Because the story of Jesus makes sense to me. If he was not who he claimed to be, the son of God, then he was either a liar or insane.

I have never understood this claim.

I am a son of God. There, I said it and I mean it...am I a liar or insane or....

Neither. You're someone trying to make a point and not seriously making a claim. In other words, even though you said "I mean it", you don't really mean it.

I do mean it. And I believe that you are a son of God, too.

Oh, didn't notice you said "a" son of God. Not sure what you mean by that, but ok.

If you had said "the" son of God as mon did in the post you replied to, then I'd still stick to my opinion that you aren't seriously making that claim.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

You are not perceiving my meaning properly. My point is not simply the watchmaker trope and in fact my example is answering your question. That is, you are trying to apply the creations rules to the creator. The creation relies on causality. The creator, not necessarily. The watch relies on gears and springs. The watchmaker, not necessarily.

Yeah, special pleading!

 

[dgreen]

So I ask again, is there anything else in your life you put faith into with the same utter and complete lack of evidence?

Several people in this thread have basically said "I believe because my own personal experiences have given me evidence that lead me to God. Since these are my own personal experiences and these experiences and feelings can't be transferred to matuski, I don't expect these experiences to convince matuski to believe."

Some things we believe are going to have an "utter and complete lack of evidence" to others. Is all evidence universal? Are there other things that people claim to have evidence of that they can't easily pass that evidence to someone else?

Same non-answer I guess.. which is all I'm getting at.

You just made a longish post to redefine evidence (lower the bar) in order to make it make some kind of sense to yourself.

However you want to define it, I would challenge you to acknowledge that you don't lower the bar like this for anything else like you do religion. Only religion requires you to suspend your every day standards of logic.

Sorry, but I'm not following what you're getting at. Are you saying that my personal experiences (which you did not observe and have not experienced yourself) leading me to a particular belief is lowering the bar of the definition of evidence? I can understand how that's a non-answer to you, but are you also saying it should be a non-answer to me and that I shouldn't accept it as evidence?

 

[josefrees]

You are not perceiving my meaning properly. My point is not simply the watchmaker trope and in fact my example is answering your question. That is, you are trying to apply the creations rules to the creator. The creation relies on causality. The creator, not necessarily. The watch relies on gears and springs. The watchmaker, not necessarily.

Yeah, special pleading!

The exception is built into the definition of God, a supposed "SUPERNATURAL" being. Lrn2rhetoric

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Why? If you have read my posts over the last 5 years or so, it's pretty obvious a very powerful being likes messing with me and is out to get me.

Only post in this thread that makes any sense.

 

[NCCommish]

You are not perceiving my meaning properly. My point is not simply the watchmaker trope and in fact my example is answering your question. That is, you are trying to apply the creations rules to the creator. The creation relies on causality. The creator, not necessarily. The watch relies on gears and springs. The watchmaker, not necessarily.

Yeah, special pleading!

The exception is built into the definition of God, a supposed "SUPERNATURAL" being. Lrn2rhetoric

Supernatural invalidates God as an answer to anything for anyone who doesn't believe in magic. It isn't an appeal to logic it is an appeal to superstition.

 

[josefrees]

The whole watchmaker thing falls apart when you realize how truly haphazard the development was. The human eye for example. Boy do the watchmaker advocates love the eye. It is not this perfect elegant invention. It really sucks for beings that live on dry land. It is given to failure due to cataracts, diabetes, etc. It is haphazard just as one would expect from something created mostly by chance mutations.

I abandoned the analogy pretty much and spoke frankly but this brings up a good point about the context of the creation. A watch is an infinitesimally simple creation compared to the creation of nature. Turning an ooze of chemicals into a living creature is miraculous enough. And who is to say that the random nature of evolution isn't the desire of the creator?

 

[Politician Spock]

Why? If you have read my posts over the last 5 years or so, it's pretty obvious a very powerful being likes messing with me and is out to get me.

Only post in this thread that makes any sense.

It's the NSA.

 

[Bucky86]

If a god made us then why do we have to eat, drink, or poop? Why can't we just exist?

 

[Black Box]

Josefrees is apparently making Aquinas' argument: that there has to be a "beginning" at some point, therefore God. I say "apparently" because his writing style is somewhat convoluted.

The problem with Aquinas' argument, from an atheist perspective, is that the existence of God does not in itself represent a beginning. It only leads to more "before" questions, such as who created God?, what came before God?, etc. and if your answer is that God was always there, then why couldn't that apply to existence as well?

Which is why I repeat that there appears to be no way to logically prove God's existence.

I don't think that is Aquinas' argument, nor how he reaches his conclusion. Rather it is rooted in Aristotle's metaphysics. Give it a look up, it is interesting.

I have. I was paraphrasing, describing the essence of Aquinas' argument (at least IMO.)

I think you've got it wrong. From what I understand, Aquinas reaches his conclusion by analyzing Aristotle's ideas of potentiality and actuality (which is one of his five ways, can't remember which one). I think he also uses Aristotle's idea of material, formal, efficient, and final causes in another one of his "proofs". He also does some other stuff in his other arguments. But regardless, it doesn't have anything to do with temporal "beginnings" and "before".

And to further that last statement, Aristotle argued for an "unmoved mover", separate from existence. But he also believed in an eternal universe. Stupid Aristotle, who moved your unmoved mover? Idiot.

But seriously, how could Aristotle hold to both of those ideas? And this is the metaphysical system that Aquinas uses to develop his own arguments.

 

[Black Box]

If a god made us then why do we have to eat, drink, or poop? Why can't we just exist?

Eating and drinking can be pretty awesome, but you've got a point on the pooping. Dentist might disagree, however.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

The whole watchmaker thing falls apart when you realize how truly haphazard the development was. The human eye for example. Boy do the watchmaker advocates love the eye. It is not this perfect elegant invention. It really sucks for beings that live on dry land. It is given to failure due to cataracts, diabetes, etc. It is haphazard just as one would expect from something created mostly by chance mutations.

I abandoned the analogy pretty much and spoke frankly but this brings up a good point about the context of the creation. A watch is an infinitesimally simple creation compared to the creation of nature. Turning an ooze of chemicals into a living creature is miraculous enough. And who is to say that the random nature of evolution isn't the desire of the creator?

This

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

You are not perceiving my meaning properly. My point is not simply the watchmaker trope and in fact my example is answering your question. That is, you are trying to apply the creations rules to the creator. The creation relies on causality. The creator, not necessarily. The watch relies on gears and springs. The watchmaker, not necessarily.

Yeah, special pleading!

The exception is built into the definition of God, a supposed "SUPERNATURAL" being. Lrn2rhetoric

That's still special pleading (and question begging to boot). If a theist and an atheist are having this argument, it accomplishes nothing to, as the first step in your argument, insist that the atheist accept the supernatural.

 

[Politician Spock]

If a god made us then why do we have to eat, drink, or poop? Why can't we just exist?

Eating and drinking can be pretty awesome, but you've got a point on the pooping. Dentist might disagree, however.

I've had some days where the highlight of my day was a good poop.

 

[Bucky86]

If a god made us then why do we have to eat, drink, or poop? Why can't we just exist?

Eating and drinking can be pretty awesome, but you've got a point on the pooping. Dentist might disagree, however.

I've had some days where the highlight of my day was a good poop.

Sure, sometimes they feel really good, but many times its just inconvenient. Like 2 hours into a 15 hour flight.

 

[NCCommish]

The whole watchmaker thing falls apart when you realize how truly haphazard the development was. The human eye for example. Boy do the watchmaker advocates love the eye. It is not this perfect elegant invention. It really sucks for beings that live on dry land. It is given to failure due to cataracts, diabetes, etc. It is haphazard just as one would expect from something created mostly by chance mutations.

I abandoned the analogy pretty much and spoke frankly but this brings up a good point about the context of the creation. A watch is an infinitesimally simple creation compared to the creation of nature. Turning an ooze of chemicals into a living creature is miraculous enough. And who is to say that the random nature of evolution isn't the desire of the creator?

At the end of the day no one can say for certain how it all got started. If you want to go with God(whatever version you worship) started the ball rolling and let nature take it's course that is actually pretty standard fare for Christians who think the creation story isn't literal. I think Christians who limit themselves to the literal creation story are actually limiting their allegedly limitless deity. With that all said introducing a supernatural cause introduces a huge new level of complexity to the universe. And that is usually a bad omen for a theory.

 

[Politician Spock]

If a god made us then why do we have to eat, drink, or poop? Why can't we just exist?

Eating and drinking can be pretty awesome, but you've got a point on the pooping. Dentist might disagree, however.

I've had some days where the highlight of my day was a good poop.

Sure, sometimes they feel really good, but many times its just inconvenient. Like 2 hours into a 15 hour flight.

If God created airplanes, every 7th seat would be a restroom.

 

[Ilov80s]

The whole watchmaker thing falls apart when you realize how truly haphazard the development was. The human eye for example. Boy do the watchmaker advocates love the eye. It is not this perfect elegant invention. It really sucks for beings that live on dry land. It is given to failure due to cataracts, diabetes, etc. It is haphazard just as one would expect from something created mostly by chance mutations.

I abandoned the analogy pretty much and spoke frankly but this brings up a good point about the context of the creation. A watch is an infinitesimally simple creation compared to the creation of nature. Turning an ooze of chemicals into a living creature is miraculous enough. And who is to say that the random nature of evolution isn't the desire of the creator?

Creating the oozing chemicals is just as miraculous. Chemistry is gd complicated to learn, can you imagine making it all up? And from as far as we can tell, there's no end to how small every single atom is.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Because to me the big bang theory is harder to believe than portions of the biblical theory....So who put all the components in place and lit the fuse?

 

[shader]

We are an insignificant species on an insignificant planet on the outer edge of an insignificant galaxy. Our hubris demands we be more than that. The universe doesn't care.

NCCommish: your response is precisely why I DO believe in a Creator. Do I believe in a white haired, white skinned grandpa sitting up in some cloud...watching all our lives intently, giving us a little assist or nudge when we need it, or hearing our prayers? No. But I do believe in panspermia. That Earth was "seeded" with life. Could have been by dumb-luck, could have been by design (I believe the latter). And that other life has given our planet, our species, a "nudge" from time to time. And probably within the next few hundred years, we'll be doing the same thing. Seeding some other planet/moon, either in our own solar system or another solar system, with life. "Creating" life on said worlds. The question is: will be we "God" to that world? Will people refer to "pillars of fire from the sky" or "angels" to describe what they were seeing...when our technology (thousands of years from now) will be thousands of years ahead of their own?

I'll agree with you. Humans aren't unique/special in the universe (multiverse?). Just one of probably millions/billions of intelligent species out there. Earth isn't unique either, in the big scheme of things. Nor is the Milky Way. But that leads me to suspect that the seeds of life found their way to Earth and evolved from other forms of life, not originating from Earth. And if life got here from "parts unknown," then to me, that introduces at least the potential for said seeds of life to be put here on purpose. Via a "Creator." Whether you call that Creator "God" or "Bob" or "Nyuck-Nyuck" doesn't much matter to me.

I get what you are saying but the reality is no creator needed. We know how life could have ended up here. Heck it could have come from Mars. But it doesn't take a conscious hand to do it. It just takes a meteor strike that transfers a simple chain of molecules. That's it. Introducing a maker doesn't make the process less complicated it complicates it infinitely, especially if we ascribe magical powers to that maker as we do with God.

preposterous

 

[Ilov80s]

We are an insignificant species on an insignificant planet on the outer edge of an insignificant galaxy. Our hubris demands we be more than that. The universe doesn't care.

NCCommish: your response is precisely why I DO believe in a Creator. Do I believe in a white haired, white skinned grandpa sitting up in some cloud...watching all our lives intently, giving us a little assist or nudge when we need it, or hearing our prayers? No. But I do believe in panspermia. That Earth was "seeded" with life. Could have been by dumb-luck, could have been by design (I believe the latter). And that other life has given our planet, our species, a "nudge" from time to time. And probably within the next few hundred years, we'll be doing the same thing. Seeding some other planet/moon, either in our own solar system or another solar system, with life. "Creating" life on said worlds. The question is: will be we "God" to that world? Will people refer to "pillars of fire from the sky" or "angels" to describe what they were seeing...when our technology (thousands of years from now) will be thousands of years ahead of their own?I'll agree with you. Humans aren't unique/special in the universe (multiverse?). Just one of probably millions/billions of intelligent species out there. Earth isn't unique either, in the big scheme of things. Nor is the Milky Way. But that leads me to suspect that the seeds of life found their way to Earth and evolved from other forms of life, not originating from Earth. And if life got here from "parts unknown," then to me, that introduces at least the potential for said seeds of life to be put here on purpose. Via a "Creator." Whether you call that Creator "God" or "Bob" or "Nyuck-Nyuck" doesn't much matter to me.

I get what you are saying but the reality is no creator needed. We know how life could have ended up here. Heck it could have come from Mars. But it doesn't take a conscious hand to do it. It just takes a meteor strike that transfers a simple chain of molecules. That's it. Introducing a maker doesn't make the process less complicated it complicates it infinitely, especially if we ascribe magical powers to that maker as we do with God.

preposterous

So you're like saying the meteor is god and stuff? Whoa

 

[NCCommish]

We are an insignificant species on an insignificant planet on the outer edge of an insignificant galaxy. Our hubris demands we be more than that. The universe doesn't care.

NCCommish: your response is precisely why I DO believe in a Creator. Do I believe in a white haired, white skinned grandpa sitting up in some cloud...watching all our lives intently, giving us a little assist or nudge when we need it, or hearing our prayers? No. But I do believe in panspermia. That Earth was "seeded" with life. Could have been by dumb-luck, could have been by design (I believe the latter). And that other life has given our planet, our species, a "nudge" from time to time. And probably within the next few hundred years, we'll be doing the same thing. Seeding some other planet/moon, either in our own solar system or another solar system, with life. "Creating" life on said worlds. The question is: will be we "God" to that world? Will people refer to "pillars of fire from the sky" or "angels" to describe what they were seeing...when our technology (thousands of years from now) will be thousands of years ahead of their own?

I'll agree with you. Humans aren't unique/special in the universe (multiverse?). Just one of probably millions/billions of intelligent species out there. Earth isn't unique either, in the big scheme of things. Nor is the Milky Way. But that leads me to suspect that the seeds of life found their way to Earth and evolved from other forms of life, not originating from Earth. And if life got here from "parts unknown," then to me, that introduces at least the potential for said seeds of life to be put here on purpose. Via a "Creator." Whether you call that Creator "God" or "Bob" or "Nyuck-Nyuck" doesn't much matter to me.

I get what you are saying but the reality is no creator needed. We know how life could have ended up here. Heck it could have come from Mars. But it doesn't take a conscious hand to do it. It just takes a meteor strike that transfers a simple chain of molecules. That's it. Introducing a maker doesn't make the process less complicated it complicates it infinitely, especially if we ascribe magical powers to that maker as we do with God.

preposterous

Not at all.

 

[shader]

We are an insignificant species on an insignificant planet on the outer edge of an insignificant galaxy. Our hubris demands we be more than that. The universe doesn't care.

NCCommish: your response is precisely why I DO believe in a Creator. Do I believe in a white haired, white skinned grandpa sitting up in some cloud...watching all our lives intently, giving us a little assist or nudge when we need it, or hearing our prayers? No. But I do believe in panspermia. That Earth was "seeded" with life. Could have been by dumb-luck, could have been by design (I believe the latter). And that other life has given our planet, our species, a "nudge" from time to time. And probably within the next few hundred years, we'll be doing the same thing. Seeding some other planet/moon, either in our own solar system or another solar system, with life. "Creating" life on said worlds. The question is: will be we "God" to that world? Will people refer to "pillars of fire from the sky" or "angels" to describe what they were seeing...when our technology (thousands of years from now) will be thousands of years ahead of their own?I'll agree with you. Humans aren't unique/special in the universe (multiverse?). Just one of probably millions/billions of intelligent species out there. Earth isn't unique either, in the big scheme of things. Nor is the Milky Way. But that leads me to suspect that the seeds of life found their way to Earth and evolved from other forms of life, not originating from Earth. And if life got here from "parts unknown," then to me, that introduces at least the potential for said seeds of life to be put here on purpose. Via a "Creator." Whether you call that Creator "God" or "Bob" or "Nyuck-Nyuck" doesn't much matter to me.

I get what you are saying but the reality is no creator needed. We know how life could have ended up here. Heck it could have come from Mars. But it doesn't take a conscious hand to do it. It just takes a meteor strike that transfers a simple chain of molecules. That's it. Introducing a maker doesn't make the process less complicated it complicates it infinitely, especially if we ascribe magical powers to that maker as we do with God.

preposterous

So you're like saying the meteor is god and stuff? Whoa

It's so ridiculous it doesn't deserve a response.