In other words, you can deny any responsibility for… well, pretty much everything you do. You don’t need to worry about any mistakes, because, hey, you are living they way god wants you to live, right? That’s terribly convenient, isn’t it?
Cognitive dissonance can explain a lot, but sometimes I’m really baffled by the way people think.
I think that, whenever you mention the word “science”(or any scientific term) in the future, I shall just provide a link to your post. This will show everyone what you know about science, and save all precious time trying to get coherent answers from you.
Does this apply to all medicine, in your view? Does a diabetic not really need insulin, but could be treated with a placebo from a loving doctor? Are we wasting trillions of dollars on doctors and hospitals and pharmaceutical research when all we really need is a giant prayer circle?
That’s not evidence for at least one god, that’s evidence for an infinite amount of gods, since it’s also evidence for two gods (one to create the universe and one to create the god that created the universe), which is evidence for three gods (one to create the…)
Again I ask-Why does it make more sense that a self-aware entity(God) has existed for all eternity, than a non-self aware entity(the universe) has existed for all eternity?
The universe “appears” to be designed. If it was designed, this necessitates a designer.
Scientists pretty much unanimously agree that space and time had a beginning.
To believe the universe exists eternally is to believe that the sum of some finite amount of things (let’s say, seconds) can equal infinite. To believe that the sum of some finite entities could equal infinite takes too much faith for someone like me to believe in. Someone like me, who prefers things a bit more tangible and observable, doesn’t buy in to such ideas very easily.
By that definition, some machine in another universe that as a side effect of its operation distorts space in such a way that occasional bits break off and go into inflationary expansion into their own universe qualifies as “God”. Or some drunken lab assistant that spills its drink onto Doctor Snrglitzz’s spacetime distortion experiment. Or any number of other things that wouldn’t resemble in the slightest anything most people would call a small-“g” god, much less God.
If you are going to change the concept of God so completely, why even use the name?
But it doesn’t look designed; quite the opposite. It’s messy, wasteful, chaotic. In other words, natural.
No, they don’t; that question is unresolved. They agree that this particular universe had a definite beginning, but not about what if anything before or outside it.
If that was true then you wouldn’t believe in God, since God is the opposite of that. Why is God, which is pretty much the craziest idea ever, more plausible?
Your “designer” doesn’t seem to be a random collection of parts thrown together-He must have been designed that way, which necessitates a designer. Turtles all the way down.
It’s a little more complicated, and not quite so unamimous, as that.
A second is not a “thing”-it’s a measurement of time. You seem to be able to “buy in” to things that are not tangible and/or observable quite easily it seems, btw-your “deity” can’t be observed, apparently has no mass, and by description lived nowhere until he created the universe.
I notice the scope of our mystery deity is narrowing by the minute. Less than a page ago it was just some random creative force and already he’s upgraded to a designer, which is a huge step up and carries a lot of implications both about him and about his creation.
None of your examples include anything about the design phase, which I’ve mentioned in earlier posts, and is part of the ‘creating’ process.
I have already made it clear that I don’t agree with this assertion. To me, the universe contains plenty of elements that look designed.
Even if this universe is actually just a spin-off from some previously existing universe, all you’ve done is move the time problem back a step. I explain this in my next point.
To me, it isn’t “more plausible” that things which look designed, aren’t. It isn’t “more plausible” that the sum of finite entities can equal infinite. To me it’s more plausible that whatever caused matter to come in to existence is probably a timeless entity. Given that matter looks to me like it’s been designed, the timeless entity is probably capable of design.
Please explain some of the design characteristics of the deity I believe in.
A “second” is most certainly, by every reasonable definition, a “thing”. Taking an arbitrary series of sequential changes, putting a start and a finish to it and calling all those changes a unit of time, you most certainly have a finite thing.
When I see something that looks designed, that’s a tangible, observable piece of evidence for the existence of its designer.
Read further back (to page 1) and you’ll see that these deity characteristics I’m positing actually aren’t being recently injected in to the conversation at all, but to the absolute contrary, have been appearing from my very first post
Or you could simply be mistaken in your observation. For example, to many people this looks like a designed face on Mars. To assert something like a Grand Designer, you might want to go beyond an initial observation.
Considering the size of the universe it would probably be a stronger indication of design if there wasn’t anything that appeared designed. That would be one hell a coincidence.
