Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A question for Athiests/Evolutionists. (re: How can one not belive in something greater than himself? et all)
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 271 of 282 (165491)
12-05-2004 8:04 PM


Why I cant believe in something greater than me...
How can I not believe in something greater than my self?
I will assume by this you actually mean how can I not believe in god?
Simple I find the concepts of god/s/whatever as many religions see them as totally preposterous. It would be like asking and sane rational person to believe in the actual existence of Godzilla or the Staypuff Marshmallow Man as portrayed in Ghostbusters
Now to take the question at face value I do believe in something grater than my self and that thing is the universe. It is vast and totally wondrous and there is so much about it that I don’t and probably won’t understand. However this awe does not have me invoking GOD as an explanation of it despite the un-fathomable mysteries yet to be discovered.
If you wanted me to define what I believe god could be please consider this apocryphal tale:
----------------------------------------------------------
Does evil exist?
The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"
"God created everything? The professor asked.
"Yes sir", the student replied.
The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil". The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.
Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?"
"Of course", replied the professor.
The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"
"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.
The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."
The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"
The professor responded, "Of course it does."
The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."
Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"
Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."
To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
The professor sat down.
The young man's name Albert Einstein.
--------------------------------------------------------------

There is no reason to believe this story is true in anthing it says but it makes for a good read, save I think it has a few thing ass about face.
In the above story God is equates to heat and Evil to cold. It is this I believe is the wrong way round.
Heat relates to the level of energy a body has. At 0k (absolute zero) a body has zero energy and no molecular movements it is still calm, at rest, peaceful if you like. Where as something that is hot has lots of energy lots of molecular motion and is far more chaotic than some thing that is ‘cold’. Also cold is depicted as blue frequently were as heat is depicted as reds.
Now if you consider the traditional homes of good and evil (heaven and hell) then you will see that heaven is depicted as calm peaceful and generally bluish white, where as hell and thus evil is depicted as very hot and fiery red.
You can see that clearly if you were to assign good and evil to hot and cold that Evil is clearly hot and Good clearly cold. So where does that leave god?
Well clearly if Good and thus God is cold then God does not exist, and the concept of God can be defined simply as the absence of Evil
But as I don’t believe in god all this is Moot but a good example of the spurious justifications for god that by their very nature forces you to question the validity of the whole shooting match.
Why can’t I believe in something bigger than me [ie God] because it’s a load of ridiculous, piffle and bunkum. That’s why

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Phat, posted 12-06-2004 6:58 AM ohnhai has replied
 Message 273 by CK, posted 12-06-2004 7:03 AM ohnhai has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 272 of 282 (165574)
12-06-2004 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by ohnhai
12-05-2004 8:04 PM


Re: Why I cant believe in something greater than me...
Ohnhai, that is a brilliant story of young Einstein! You say that belief is ridiculous. And yet you quote a great man who speaks of belief. Methinks that you really mean to inform us that you do not HAVE to believe, but I suspect that you have entertained the notion! Bully for you, then. Keep on thinking! If God is real, He will find you eventually. If not, no big deal, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by ohnhai, posted 12-05-2004 8:04 PM ohnhai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by sidelined, posted 12-06-2004 7:30 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 276 by ohnhai, posted 12-06-2004 9:40 AM Phat has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 273 of 282 (165576)
12-06-2004 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by ohnhai
12-05-2004 8:04 PM


Re: Why I cant believe in something greater than me...
Isn't the real problem with that story that the examples given are only that way because God (if you believe in such a creature) created the physical laws of the universe in that manner? (in the same way that he created evil?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by ohnhai, posted 12-05-2004 8:04 PM ohnhai has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 274 of 282 (165579)
12-06-2004 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Phat
12-06-2004 6:58 AM


Re: Why I cant believe in something greater than me...
Phatboy
Well I for one doubt this is authentic and I do suppose it would require some investigation to determine where it originated.Since Einstein did not believe in a personal god but equated god with nature then perhaps this would be possible though unlikely.
This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-06-2004 04:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Phat, posted 12-06-2004 6:58 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Asgara, posted 12-06-2004 7:53 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 275 of 282 (165580)
12-06-2004 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by sidelined
12-06-2004 7:30 AM


Re: Why I cant believe in something greater than me...
Snopes has a pretty good article about the "smart student" and the "atheist professor" stories.
Did Albert Einstein Humiliate an Atheist Professor? | Snopes.com

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by sidelined, posted 12-06-2004 7:30 AM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by ohnhai, posted 12-06-2004 9:45 AM Asgara has not replied

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 276 of 282 (165609)
12-06-2004 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Phat
12-06-2004 6:58 AM


Re: Why I cant believe in something greater than me...
Please note that I said the story is apocryphal, and is posted as such on several sites. These sites point out that the story has been seen many times with different people doing the tormenting. So it’s more likely to be something made up with Einstein inserted to give it credibility.
I like the story because it is fun and made me smile, but highlights a problem with ‘proofs’ like this, that the placing of good and evil with its framework it totally arbitrary and thus meaningless. The writer places god as heat and evil as cold because he wants to state evil does not exist and that any perceived evil is the absence of god. There is no reasoning behind this placement other than the writer is already convinced in the existence of god and so would not write the story in such a way that would state a lack of existence for god, even when a more logical, though no less arbitrary, position is to place good as cold and evil as hot as I described.
A real world example of this kind of highly questionable ‘proof’
In the JW booklet the bible: god’s words or man’s? They make the claim (among many equally flawed claims) that the fact that so many people have martyred themselves in the name of their faith to be ‘proof’ that the bible is god’s word not man’s. ?!!?!! This was actually in print! She had gone home to get this book specifically for me. I read it, I could not believe it! They were honestly trying to use the murder or self-sacrifice of many thousands to prove authorship of a book? You simply can not say that. There is not a single point that you can use to justify that. All martyrdom proves is that there are people out there who believe strongly enough in the bible to lay down their life. What it does not prove is that the bible is categorically the word of god and not a man made fabrication. Where as the ‘Einstein’ anecdote is amusing and clever but totally arbitrary, the JW’s books are flat out wrong, but un-fortunately a lot of argument for religion tends to be just as flawed.
And no, I don’t find belief ridiculous (except when it leads people into stupidity like the above example). Belief if a wondrous thing that can lead people to great heights and propel them to dark places too. Belief if a facet of human nature that is simply astounding. But it doesn’t have to be a belief in god/gods/whatever to qualify as belief. It’s the structures and preposterous claims and concepts around which belief is frequently built I have problems with. People ask why can’t you believe in something greater than you? (Typically meaning God) Just look around you, at the universe and the majesty of it all! How can you not believe in god in the face of all this?
Firstly I have to agree that the Universe is a truly astounding place but why invoke the hand of god in it? Sure we don’t know everything about it yet but we are on the road to discover all we can. There was a time when thunder and lightening was believed to be the anger of the gods, but now we understand it to be a natural phenomenon resulting from a whole host of factors from barometric pressure to sea temperatures and so on. The fact that most religious thought places man at the very centre of creation, fugitively and literally, is another big clue as to the manufactured nature of the whole thing [religion that is] What gives us the right to assume that this species is the be all and end all of creation? But religion has gone further than that and even gone as far to suggest that a single tribe/family were the darlings of god and the rest didn’t matter. This concept centring of god’s focus on one family of one species of one planet of the countless billions of planets out there and claiming we are the panicle of it all shows a supreme arrogance that is very, very human but not much divinity.
I used the concept of believing in Godzilla or the ‘Staypuff Marshmallow Man’ to try and indicate that I believe that the whole notion of god or gods to be just as man made and thus equally as hard to believe in. I know Godzilla to be a story created by man, just as I believe god to also be a construction of man to explain the unknown and to have some kind of overseer to plead to in times of strife. God does exists as a mental concept but, that doesn’t imply that god exists outside of that concept as anything more then a fanciful idea created by man to explain stuff he couldn’t fathom or to seek meaning in natural disasters or death. I can emotionally sympathise with characters in a work of fiction and even sometimes gain new perspectives about the world around me, from their stories I but I wouldn’t believe in the existence of those characters outside their narrative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Phat, posted 12-06-2004 6:58 AM Phat has not replied

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 277 of 282 (165610)
12-06-2004 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Asgara
12-06-2004 7:53 AM


Re: Why I cant believe in something greater than me...
thats exactly where I got the text to cut and paste.... though I was origionally sent the text in a mail some time ago but unfortunatly lost that mail..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Asgara, posted 12-06-2004 7:53 AM Asgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Phat, posted 12-06-2004 9:16 PM ohnhai has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 278 of 282 (165771)
12-06-2004 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by ohnhai
12-06-2004 9:45 AM


Re: Why I cant believe in something greater than me...
Ohnhai, I personally have always believed that God was the source of all matter, all knowable and unknowable knowledge, all life, and all that is. The alternative view which you espouse gives reverence and awe to an impersonal universe while skipping the notion of a Creator. So what came first? Creation(matter,elements) or a Creator?
I personally find that if one or the other existed through eternity, the Creator would make more sense preexisting than would lifeless elements. Man is not the source of his own awe inspired wisdom.
At least, not in my opinion.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 12-06-2004 09:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by ohnhai, posted 12-06-2004 9:45 AM ohnhai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by ohnhai, posted 12-07-2004 9:09 AM Phat has not replied

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 279 of 282 (165860)
12-07-2004 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Phat
12-06-2004 9:16 PM


Re: Why I cant believe in something greater than me...
Quote: Phatboy
-------------------------------
Man is not the source of his own awe inspired wisdom
-------------------------------
Yes he is. We think there fore we wonder. unlike all other creatures in this world, who just learn to avoid things of potential danger, humans have the capacity not only to learn to avoid the dangerous things but also to think about ‘Why’ they are a danger. More than that, Humans can think about ‘thinking about’ why those things are a danger. This unique inquisitiveness is what drives humans awe inspired wisdom.
The fact that there is something to be awed by, and something as awesome as the universe, in all its glory is another matter altogether. And as you say my version gives reverence to an impersonal universe without the need for a creator, but does this make an impersonal universe sans creator any less awesome or impressive? No it doesn’t. In fact, if no creator had a hand in its being and all this is the result of some natural process, then surely it has to be seen as even more inspirational, and really, really awesome?
As to how that universe came about in the first place. Most people will agree that there was indeed a beginning to the universe. Whether that was 6k years ago or 14billion, by a creator or some as yet un-discovered process, is still wide open for debate. Personally I can’t see any sense in invoking a creator that existed before the existence of the universe in infinite time, when a more honest answer is we don’t know! Yet.
Another key point to understanding that religion and god is a man made system, and thus why I cant honestly subscribe to any version, is to realise that what religion you follow, for the vast majority of people, is not a mater of 'fundamental truth's or personal choice resulting from self-evident realities, but simply inheriting the belief from their family. Not there aren’t a few who step away from their inherited faith and either move to a different belief system or even turn from religious belief systems altogether but on the whole people inherit their god from their parents or immediate family.
If Christian why are you a Christian? If Muslim, Jewsish, whatever, why are you so? Was it a conscious choice on your part based on the evidence around you, or was it because this was the faith of your parents, and thus they raised you their faith? Would your current god and religion still have been your god and religion if you had been born to parents of a different religion rather than the ones to which you actually were?
My parents were CoE and thus I was taught and raised in CoE environment and system, and till I came to realise the stupidity of it all my religion was most definitely CoE. Had my Mom and Dad been Jewish I’m sure I would have been raised a Jew. Had they been Buddhists or Muslims, then that would have been the faith I’d have been raised in. You can claim that yes but all the other religions are not the correct religion but where does that leave you in the realisation that what religion you are is by and large a simple accident of birth? And if you have actually switched religions (and I’m not talking about moving between different denominations with in a particular religion like Christianity.) then this doesn’t invalidate the fact that what god you subscribe to is for most people a simple accident of birth as changing religions is definitely in the minority.And if you have changed religions, that also begs the question if you can refute the ‘fundamental truths’ of the ‘one true’ religion you were raised in as being wrong, you do have to question any other religion that claims to have the one true version
Just another reason why "I cant believe in something greater than my self" [aka 'god'].
----
edits for clarity
This message has been edited by ohnhai, 12-07-2004 11:23 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Phat, posted 12-06-2004 9:16 PM Phat has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 280 of 282 (180955)
01-26-2005 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheClashFan
11-19-2004 9:24 PM


quote:
I do not intend on sounding airy or mad, but I do have a question regarding faith. How can one not belive in something greater than himself?
By having no reason to believe that there is anything greater.
For example, as a tech, I'm beyond shit-hot. However, the fact that there are 6 billion people on the planet gave me reason to believe that I probably wasn't the best. And, once I actually had the pleasure of working with someone who was better, the probability became a certainty.
So, for the question of gods, you need to either show that there are several billion of them (which gives me a basis on which to form the probability that at least one is greater than me), or present one that is demonstrably greater. Either task would seem to be rather difficult, as the gods seem to have all gone into hiding.
quote:
How can one go through life's difficulties and be unable to always know that at least one person loves you?
Isn't that what pets are for?
quote:
At times, it is my only comfort knowing that God loves me, and I cannot understand how one can go through life without belief in something.
Try a cat. The purr is instantly gratifying.
quote:
Can anyone give me a good reason on why they do not belive in any omnipotent being or diety?
Never seen one, and have no basis to form the conclusion that one is even probable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheClashFan, posted 11-19-2004 9:24 PM TheClashFan has not replied

  
Physrho
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 282 (239009)
08-31-2005 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by PurpleYouko
11-19-2004 11:44 PM


I think it's both
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purple- Sorry I had to reply on a different thread-
I'm not saying that there is a separation from spiritual to non spiritual. I am saying the nature of the two are different. This is because One is creator,and one is the fruit of the other. I believe that all things natural are connected to a unifying source. And when I say a unifying source, I mean a solid explanation for all things. I believe science is seeking to discover the source. When I say supernatural, I mean one who is the creator and of course outside of physical laws. I say this only because, believe it or not, the laws of physics had an origin. The fact is that there seems to be an inherant order to the workings of the universe. And now scientifically, there is no doubt a oneness, a prelude to a unified theory to this order of all things that we can physically sense. Basically, there is only one explanation and truth to why it's all here. Science knows and understands this, and has created it's own faiths in order to have it all make sense.
In the words of The Nuclear Physicist, Gerald Schroeder :"We humans like to label things, wrap our minds around a concept, to define and package it; in essense to limit it so that the concept finds harmony within our human definition of logic. But how does someone label or even think about that which is not part of our physical world? Confining the metaphysical to a physical description totally misses the "meta" aspect." (1) I will now attempt to explain biblically why my faith carries weight.
The Bible's definition of Who God Is can be summed in a few words: 1.He is One: (Deut.6:4) says The Lord Our God is One Lord. John 1:3, says that all things were made by him. And Hebrews 1:3 says that all things are upheld by the Word of his Power. I think this means that every thing in existance is actually held in existance by his word. The very reason we see nothing and boggle at why nothing is the basis of all matter is because we are not looking at a thing at all, we are looking at the Power of his Word, the "expression of an idea" that we cannot explain. And his word is in fact invisible.
2. He is Invisible: The Bible says(paraphrased) God is Invisible (Col.1:15). This explains why we cannot find him. This is why non-believers will not give him the credit; they can't see him. They would rather assume we popped out of nowhere from nothing and propogate a religion claiming that it must be true. Even if there is no proof for the assumption (i.e. God is not possible).
3. He is Eternal: (Deut 33:27), 2 Co.4:18 tells us that the things which we can see are in fact temporal, meaning they will not last forever. It also tells us that the things which are not seen (invisible, metaphysical, faith required) are in fact eternal. In short, the God of the Bible, (Jew, Christain, Muslim) is this one unified thing that ties all and holds all together. Scientists won't deny that there is a unified theory, simply because we inherantly know that only one unifying truth exists. If the God of the Bible claims to be who he says he is and can do what he says he can do, then it perfectly aligns with the unity of all things and the mysterious, invisible non-thing which is at the root of all things.
(1) Gerald Shroeder, "The Hidden Face of God"
pg.12
This message has been edited by Physrho, 08-31-2005 01:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PurpleYouko, posted 11-19-2004 11:44 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-31-2005 2:24 PM Physrho has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 282 of 282 (239042)
08-31-2005 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Physrho
08-31-2005 1:30 PM


Re: I think it's both
Purple- Sorry I had to reply on a different thread-
No problem Physrho. I guess this discussion is reasonably on topic for this thread.
I am saying the nature of the two are different. This is because One is creator,and one is the fruit of the other.
I honestly don't see the difference. Anything that can have any effect (such as creating it) on "the physical" would have to be "physical" in nature itself. The creator would have had to work within the "laws of the physical" in order to create anything "physical".
fact is that there seems to be an inherant order to the workings of the universe. And now scientifically, there is no doubt a oneness, a prelude to a unified theory to this order of all things that we can physically sense. Basically, there is only one explanation and truth to why it's all here.
I don't find it at all surpising that everything works with an inherant order. If the universe were any other way it would be unstable and would have ceased to exist long ago. In a system where membranes collide to produce random new universes it is inevitable that eventually one of them will turn out to be stable and ordered. The fact that we live in one is no big deal. If it weren't stable and ordered then we wouldn't be here at all.
But how does someone label or even think about that which is not part of our physical world?
Trouble is that if it isn't part of our physical world then we won't be able to see, hear, taste, touch or feel it anyway so we would have absolutely no way to know if it were there at all. It would have absolutely zero impact on our physical world and so would be, by definition, utterly irrelevent.
Since I have personally experienced things which many would term superbatural (ie. by sight, feel etc.) I deduce that these things are in fact very much physical since they are able to directly affect my physical senses. I just don't yet understand how.
Confining the metaphysical to a physical description totally misses the "meta" aspect."
Agreed but "meta" is only a human affectation added to something which they don't understand. The known physical is always expanding to encompass what used to be "meta" physical. Much of it isn't a mystery any more
(1) I will now attempt to explain biblically why my faith carries weight.
Sorry and all that but the bible means absolutely nothing to me. IMO it is just a bunch of badly written, self contradictory fiction so explaining something in terms of the bible is a bit like explaining Life, the universe and everything by reading Batman comics (No offence intended to Batman of course )
Your faith may well carry weight for you but it is entirely subjective. That is your choice but to me it means nothing unless you can give me objective evidence.
This explains why we cannot find him. This is why non-believers will not give him the credit; they can't see him. They would rather assume we popped out of nowhere from nothing and propogate a religion claiming that it must be true. Even if there is no proof for the assumption (i.e. God is not possible).
I don't think anybody believes on faith that we "popped out of nowhere".
We are making every possible attempt to figure out exactly what happened but no credible, genuine scientist will catagorically assert that we "popped out of nowhere". As you say, there is no proof for the assumption.
However there is definite precidence for "popping out of nowhere" Fundamental particles do it all the time. Many observations have been made of this over the years.
Take the Pentaquark as an example.
quote:
So, bringing this all the way back around to answer the question that started this post off, the "pentaquark" is formed by creating particles out of thin air (improbable as that may seem). A deuterium nucleus is sitting there, mining its own business, when a hugely energetic photon slams into it. The photon energy (and some of the energy that was holding the deuterium nucleus and its components together) goes into creating four new quarks out of nothing: an "up" and an "anti-up", and a "strange" and an "anti-strange." The "strange" and the "anti-up" pair off, and leave as a kaon, while the "anti-strange" and the "up" join up with the three quarks that used to be the neutron, and form the "pentaquark" (which later decays into a neutron and another kaon).
How many times have we ever observed God create anything? None.
That means that we are faced with a choice between.
1) Something from nothing. Science has observed this so we know it is possible. Viable theories exist which could possibly give explanations.
2) Something from God. Nobody has ever shown objective evidence that God exists. Nobody has directly observed God make something. All we have are a nice old book and a lot of people claiming to "know" something unknowable.
I will tentatively take option 1 thanks. I will however, allow for the tiniest sliver of possibility, however infinitesimally small it is, that 2 might be true so I refuse to utterly dismiss it.
This puts me in the reasoned position of having zero faith in either option.
No religion involved!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Physrho, posted 08-31-2005 1:30 PM Physrho has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024