Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonlfunk  Quote: |
Originally Posted by Churble And alas, the very part of our lives religion sets out explain is blatantly and actively ignored, giving way to the dogmatic and irrational beliefs which create more questions than they set out to answer. | What do you mean by this? |
Well, what I mean is this. Religion's "purpose" (i.e., the reason why it was created by man) is a means by which to answer some fundamental philosophical questions (why are we here? who "made" us, etc...). When religion fails to report answers to these questions, it simply reverts to doctrines which deny us the use of reason, the main "tool" we use to solve these problems or questions. Thus, its main purpose is discarded and the dogmatic rules by which it's governed (a natural consequence of any irrational belief) moves on to occupy the spotlight. Dogmatic beliefs which ignore the questions they set out to answer are not, and I hope you will agree with me on this, the central pillars of this belief in god.
Just in case, I'm referring to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonlfunk Voluntary change does not necessitate a desire to improve. But as to why God choose to create us, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism says "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever." |
It clearly states that, once religion fails to provide us with decent solutions, we should limit our lives to glorifying god and not ask questions, creating more questions that it even set out to answer: why did god create us?, how did god start existing?, where is god?, etc... Questions which would not exist if we were to eliminate god from the subject.
Voluntary change
does indeed require a desire to improve. In which case does it not? Before you state extreme and irrelevant situations like masochism, I'll only say that they are characteristic of psychologically deficient people... I hope you're not saying that the god in which you believe in is mentally unstable and / or possibly insane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonlfunk All of our physical laws are descriptive laws- they describe how reality normally behaves. A miracle (a temporary suspension of a physical law) is what creation out of nothing is. No big deal there. |
Why would this omnipotent being find the need to even suspend these descriptive laws? Again, creating more irrelevant questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxinc++ Now, I didn't say that. I can toss 5 dice into the air, have them show 1-6 on their upper face, and have them all in a small circle. (order on this scale) They weren't designed like that. (yes, they were designed, but I'm talking about the way that they are; their current state of existence--that certainly doesn't imply design). In that case, you would be right.
However, when you throw "highly complicated" into it, you change it entirely. While the dice could all be scattered around and show each number, do you honestly believe they could stack up perfectly, with all of the numbers lined up? (highly-complicated on this scale). And the universe is so much more! How can you say the universe, being highly-complicated isn't designed, but it would be nearly impossible for the dice scenario to happen?
So, while order doesn't necessarily imply design, order and high-complication points strongly to it. |
Highly complicated compared to exactly what? We say that a watch is highly complicated
compared to a sand clock. So, the Universe is highly complicated compared to
what exactly (we obviously have to compare it to similar things)? And, why can't the Universe be even more organized and complicated than it currently is? What if we're living in an extremely
simple Universe out of all the trillions and trillions of possibilities?
Your "highly-complicated" argument is useless since we can't currently compare the Universe to any other things of similar characteristics or dimensions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonlfunk And I'm sure that your statement that science and philosophy has come to the conclusion that there are millions of other places with life in the universe is quite wrong. The percentage of the universe that is habitable is very small, the the area of that which could have intelligent life is even smaller. |
And you're saying this based on... what? Our extensive knowledge of the Universe?
