What the fuck does that have to do with topic of the thread?!
Could A Good God Permit So Much Suffering?
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Why the fuck are you so stupid that you can't stay focused on the topic at hand? Your Climate Change religion is totally stupid, regardless of the topic of this thread. You don't have to become unhinged just because someone mentions certain shortcomings of your belief. Just deal with it and move on.
... but your religion really is bonkers.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Not retired. More like a watchmaker who winds up a watch to observe it's working.
Space-Time began with the creation of the Universe. It's a limitation. Anything outside of Space-Time isn't limited by those constraints.
What is 100 billion years to forces outside of Space-Time? Short answer: Nothing.
Faith is just a strong belief in something without having proof.
Believing, without any tangible evidence, that something can come from nothing, that life can come from non-life, that rational order can come from chaos, that reason can come from non-reason is as much a type of faith as any other faith.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Incorrect. Faith is a belief that is unsupported by any rational basis. Belief that my house will still be standing when I return from the grocery store, on the other hand, has a rational basis.
This is yet another example of you deliberately misrepresenting opposing views out of your panicking inability to justify/defend your own views.
When did you show that it cannot?
It makes sense that someone like you has never heard of a transistor, or of a water pump and plumbing.
Not when it rests on a rational basis vs. irrational theism.
Faith: "belief that is not based on proof." (Dictionary.com)
Blind faith is just an extreme example. That's why we literally add a qualifier to it - "blind" faith.
You have no rational basis or tangible evidence for believing that something spontaneously comes from nothing, that life comes from non-life, that order comes from chaos, that reason comes from non-reason.
In fact, all our sense evidence and life experience shows those beliefs can't be true.
That's why I can't have the kind of faith it takes to be an atheist. It requires a belief in miracles.
Incorrect. Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm were not irrational men.
Religious belief can be rational, and based on reason and logical inference. The cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument are all independent and mutually supporting bodies of logical reasoning that claim to point to some kind of universal spirit, eternal logos, or Tao.
There is nothing in life experience or rational sense data that tells Sybil that something spontaneously comes from nothing.
There is nothing in life experience or rational sense data that tells Sybil that life spontaneously comes from non-life.
There is nothing in life experience or sense data that tells Sybil that reason comes from non-reason.
I do not have the blind faith to accept these beliefs, and that's why I turned away from atheism 20 years ago.
There is nothing in life experience or rational sense data that tells Sybil that life spontaneously comes from non-life.
There is nothing in life experience or sense data that tells Sybil that reason comes from non-reason.
I do not have the blind faith to accept these beliefs, and that's why I turned away from atheism 20 years ago.
There are legitimate arguments against Aquinas on this front. Not debating the concept of "ex nihilo nihil fit" but rather that it is a weak argument in that it is not in support of anything other than a special construct that has no predicate requirement.
But it certainly is NOT an argument for any particular God and fails for the same reason the original requirement of a predicate exists.
Given that life exists but did not exist at one point, it would stand to reason that life arose from non-life. Where else could it possibly have come from?
Also: so many things in life align with non-living things. The best example I can find is the prevalence of certain chiralities of organic molecules in living systems which seems to match how inorganic surfaces like clays or carbonates adsorb the chemicals. The dominance of one chirality for almost all biological systems lines up with an inorganic origin.
Also: there's no special chemistry in biochemistry that doesn't also exist in non-living things.
Why do people always call atheism "faith"? It almost feels like people who have faith realize it is a weaker belief system than one predicated on evidence, so they "demonize" those things that have evidence as somehow requiring "faith".
I always assume it is based on a limited half-knowledge of atheism. Not all atheism is faith-based. In fact a good solid atheism has no faith involved.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
why not ask jews too?
because you're trying to make Christians look "illogical".
you're such a transparent sophistry shmoe.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
Cypress is so god-like he defies reason in his rantings.
Life randomly and spontaneously arising from non-life, aka from inert chemicals to biology.
At this point, it's faith that that could have happened randomly
Yes. Seems absolutely perfectly rational and most likely the source of life. Where else could it possibly have come from?
And requires a belief in the unknowable.
Your life experience and your sense perception has never seen or perceived life spontaneously coming from non-life.
Neither have I.
The three possibilities I have under consideration are:
1) Life is inevitable under the right chemical and physical conditions. Chemical inevitability.
2) Life on Earth is unique or exceptionally rare, and required a unique and highly unlikely series of physical and chemical steps.
3) Life is a miracle totally beyond the comprehension of human reason.
What is the difference between the chemistry of non-life and the chemistry of life? That would help to establish the metes and bounds. Because from where I sit there's no real difference.
We can rule that one out from the start. The chemistry of life is nothing more or less than regular chemistry. There is literally nothing that is different between life and non-life chemistry. In fact the word "organic" is no longer limited (as it once was) to life-related chemistry.
So in order to make this into something that it isn't (a mystery) it would help to understand what you mean by differentiating chemistry of life from chemistry of non-life.
I think the biggest leap of faith strict physical materialists take is the belief that all of reality is rationally intelligible.
A big assumption.
To paraphrase Isaac Newton, "I can explain what gravity does, I can't explain what it is."
I'm surprised you don't see any difference between your human agency and free will, and a carbon atom.
Nobody has been able to produce a biological cell from non-life in a lab, even though we've been trying for 80 years.
It is definitely a leap of faith to believe that everything about life, personal agency, conscience is ultimately a matter of the motions and energy exchanges between quarks and electrons.
It is that kind of leap of faith that convinced me atheism required too much of a suspension of reason and experience. For me anyway.