Originally Posted by haylie
So you're basically saying that it's not logical to believe in God, because essentially there is no reason people should believe in a God since we have no proof that he exists.
See, I have a rather strange take on religion. I consider myself an orthodox, but that's only because I was born in an orthodox family. Now, over the years, I've developed this ability to listen to all the things being thrown at me from religion, science, school, other people, etc. and decide for myself whether it is BS or not, whether it is satisfying or not.
Now, science has told me HOW the universe was created, how life appeared on earth, how the laws of physics function, etc. What it never taught me and never will is WHY. Why was the universe created? Why did we evolve in this way and not another? (dolphin humanoids would have been so cool  ) Why are the laws of physics the way they are?
I found the answer to that in religion, or philosophy if you will. I believe there is a higher force out there that decided all these things, be it God, aliens, some mysterious force of the Universe that makes things be the way there are. I believe humans are here to search for that supreme being or concept.
See, for me, science and common sense cannot explain EVERYTHING I need to know about the world I live in. I need religion for my understanding of the world to be complete. |
The problem with your argument is that you've taken as a forgone conclusion the notion that the universe and the stuff it contains
must have a purpose. There's no real basis to assume that our existence has any prearranged purpose other than the fact that it makes us "feel better" (and I shouldn't have to point out that feeling is not a valid substitute for truth).
There is a philosophical notion called the Anthropic Principle which answers the question, "why are we here?" by simply replying "because we are." Basically,
the universe is the way it is because otherwise we would not be here to observe it. This is
not to say that the universe was designed specifically to produce and contain us. It simply means that, even though it may be extremely unlikely that the universe should have the correct physical properties to produce intelligent life, the unlikely events
must have happened because it produced us. It may be that billions of universe have existed before ours, each of them going unremarked because they never produced beings capable of observing and questioning the nature of reality. When considering how staggeringly unlikely our existence is, people rarely take into consideration the possibility of failed attempts.
If you think it is unlikely that the universe came to be the way it is by sheer dumb luck, you would probably be right. If you think it is
more likely that the universe was created in an orderly fashion by a being (or race of beings) of exceptional intelligence and ability,
whose existence is even less likely because it requires additional complexity, I would ask that you kindly recheck your premises.
Originally Posted by haylie
Now how does that prove your post wrong? Well, I for one found a reason to believe in God. Maybe different people have different reasons for believing in what they believe, empirical or not. You cannot judge a person's feelings and beliefs based solely on empirical evidence. You need empirical evidence to state a fact, not an opinion.
|
Exactly what exempts beliefs and opinions from requiring evidence? What makes them so special that they require no basis in reality?
I
believe that President Obama is actually a lizard-man from Uranus come to spread his lizard-man genes on Earth in order to dilute the human gene pool in preparation for his lizard-people's impending invasion. Should this belief be exempt from empirical evidence?
I
believe that human intelligence originates from alien souls implanted in our bodies after their cryogenically frozen bodies were flown to Earth on DC10 space planes, dumped on the rims of active volcanos, and destroyed with nuclear weapons on the order of the Galactic Emperor Xenu whose reign of terror has lasted for 75 billion years. Should this belief be exempt from empirical evidence?
I
believe than an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being created the universe in its present state 6500 years ago over the span of six days in an order than defies the laws of physics and a geological record, and that roughly 2000 years ago he impregnated a young girl without breaking her hymen. She then gave birth to that being's son, who was also him, and 33 years later he was executed for blasphemy before coming back from the dead and ascending physically to a place outside of physical space to rejoin his father who is also him. Should this belief be exempt from empirical evidence?