Why do you believe what you believe?

One might say that there is no reason why one should not believe in God--also, no reason why one should. Pixies and other such entities are not on the same level as the creator of the universe.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-27-2005 06:38 AM

If the monster under the bed created the universe, then that's just another name for god. I'm not sure what a "kip" is. A night on the town? A moment of mischief?

There are only 2 answers as to how the universe exists:1. It has always existed2. It was created by something or other. If pixies, then pixies are god.I suppose one might say that the universe created itself, but that doesn't make any sense to me. If it didn't exist, it couldn't create anything. Or one might say that our universe was created by another universe, but that just begs the question.Big Bang theory suggests that the universe came into existence, but of course there is no way to investigate what happened before .000000001 second or whatever the figure is after the expansion began and after space and time--mind you--came into existence in its present form. It's hard to imagine a universe existing with no space-time around, but I suppose anything is possible. Maybe there was this male quark and it combined with the female quark and thus birthed the universe--thus the term "charmed quark." These two quarks had to have been dating for eternity; otherwise, something created them.So there has to be something that is eternal.

One fine day it just started existing on its own? That makes no sense to me. Something out of nothing? Ex nihilo?

All these labels you come up with--the fallacy of this and that--could be applied to the above. What is this fallacy? The fallacy of "it's possible that something that makes no sense could be?"Yeah, I suppose it's possible. It's just another way of saying that the universe in some form always existed. And that business about virtual particles does not apply since we observe them within a universe where there are all sorts of other things around.

If something created the creator, then he, she, or it is not the creator.But if something exists--as it does--then there has to be something that is eternal--either nature or pixies.Something can't create itself.

That the universe has existed forever makes sense. That the universe began without a cause makes no sense. But if you want to say "it's possible," fine.

Maybe not. And maybe there's a god. I don't see any reason for accepting one idea over the other.Therefore, it's just as rational to believe in god as not to believe in god.Such beliefs are not on the same level as believing in pixies, which are merely extraneous entities.

You can call it what you like--pixies, fairies, the cosmic egg . . .But if the universe was created, something had to create it. But there's always the possibility that it has existed forever.

The evidence, such as it is, is that the universe exists, and the speculation is that it used not to (big bang). If that is the case, something had to make it come into existence. That something we label "god." No reason why "god," whatever that is, should "interact."

The only way it could be extraneous is if the universe existed always. Otherwise, "god" is the cause of everything. You could hardly call that extraneous.

I know what a logical fallacy is; I was denying I was committing any.

The purported God did not cause himself. That's impossible. He just always existed.I also said that one could claim that the universe always existed as an alternative.What I am denying is that something can cause itself to come into existence from non-existence.

Might be. I don't know. The more attributes you ascribe to God, the less reasonable the idea becomes. If you just stick to Creator, it's not unreasonable.

Not that I recall. I was arguing that human morality has no ground, if that's what you're referring to.