arul said:I'm an agnostic too. Bertrand Russel for the win! *shakes hand with WarAngel*
DontdroptheSOAD said:There is no garden sprinkler.
TheOutkastDev said:We know that material substances exist because a cause brings them into existence. If a material substance were to come to existence without causality, it would supersede logic, and imply a power that is not bound by the fundamental rules of nature.
With that said understood, it would be impossible to go backward on the chain of causality and have a rational explanation for the existence of the first material substance. Thus, we can logically conclude there exists at the beginning of the entire order of the universe, a material substance which is not bound by logic, and exists outside the realm of rational thought. This is God.
You cannot rationalize God's existence because he exists beyond the realm of any form of logical thought. You can sit here and try to prove God doesn't exist all day long, but it won't matter. The people who truly believe in him know that Faith is not a matter of mind, but a matter of Heart.
You're wasting your time, and creating a lot of unncessary hostility.
Exactly. Not to mention that there're many examples like this.Mo Khan said:Extremely well stated.
to whom is it directed?
I, too, ask the question...
If the big bang theory is the beginning of what we know is to be the Universe, then by the very laws that regulate nature, specifically Newtonian Laws, and of those, specifically, that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then what "created" the initial matter which compressed, due to gravity, and then resulted in the "explosion" thus creating our universe and all materials and life thereof?
/agreeCourageous said:We know that material substances exist because a cause brings them into existence.
Neither you nor I "know" any such thing. There are any number of things, observable in the universe, without explainable causality. If you wish to ascribe to these things a mythological creator, this is your prerogative, but as you say, this is entirely a matter of faith.
There are no valid arguments of reason leading to a creator. Worse, most that attempt to (and perhaps come arguably close to) being such an argument, say nothing about what sort of creator this might be, say even less about how one ought to behave.
C//
Courageous said:Neither you nor I "know" any such thing. There are any number of things, observable in the universe, without explainable causality.
Malaperth said:Anti-Basic?
Observable with what ?Courageous said:Neither you nor I "know" any such thing. There are any number of things, observable in the universe, without explainable causality....
arul said:Observable with what ?
Courageous said:Neither you nor I "know" any such thing. There are any number of things, observable in the universe, without explainable causality.