Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
First off, you are indeed entitled to believe whatever you want, but that does not change the fact if your beliefs are justified or not. If you have no evidence that the universe is in fact created, then you have no justification for assuming a creator.
Secondly, what on earth does this have to do with Karl Marx?
First off, you are indeed entitled to believe whatever you want, but that does not change the fact if your beliefs are justified or not. If you have no evidence that the universe is in fact created, then you have no justification for assuming a creator.
Secondly, what on earth does this have to do with Karl Marx?
The universe is created, we live in it. Of course, unless you consider that our 5 senses and our mind is tricking itself into believing what we're living in is actually real and we're in some kind of matrix, then I get your point.If you have no evidence that the universe is in fact created, then you have no justification for assuming a creator.
Karl Marx is part of this argument because he Karl was created in the universe, and we're talking about the universe.Secondly, what on earth does this have to do with Karl Marx?
Consider this, justifying and evidence are two different things.
jus·ti·fied
ˈjəstəˌfīd/
adjective
adjective: justified
1.
having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.
Simply put, justifying a belief on someone is simply convincing them to also believe in it. Let's be objective on this, and not convince this argument to its end. Now this aside, when we're talking about God, things can get messy. God has no evidence, and cannot simply have evidence because God can be anything, really. We're talking about an entity that is claimed to have powers outside time and space. Who knows, maybe he's a unicorn too. However, using the Bible or any other form of "justifying" to prove if God exists is a weak argument, and arguing if the Bible is morally wrong or right is not a strong and solid way of proving if God exists. So let's not justify.
The universe is created, we live in it. Of course, unless you consider that our 5 senses and our mind is tricking itself into believing what we're living in is actually real and we're in some kind of matrix, then I get your point.
So, on the realist side, the universe is created. There is a creator, we just don't know if this creator is this God we're all talking about, some massive supernova (or whatever), or perhaps something more.
Karl Marx is part of this argument because he Karl was created in the universe, and we're talking about the universe.
The point is if you can't back up or justify your claims, then you have no reason to hold them. Likewise, I'd have to reason to ever accept your claims.
In this scenario, she is asserting the universe was created. In theology debates, that would imply that the universe was intelligently and deliberately created and therefore a creator is required.
The problem is, she can not show that the universe was actually created instead of being formed through natural processes of some sort. Therefore, she has no grounds to assume a creator is required to exist.
Using created in that sense, you are correct. But that's not the way she was using it. The universe certainly had a beginning, but that does not mean an intelligent force / god created it.
I also do not think she was trying to imply that....
Or just accept that there's no reason to think there is a cause in the first place. Or that the mechanism is something totally different from what we'd intuit because intuition doesn't really do a good job with things so far outside our normal range of experience.
Rejecting the idea that the universe had a cause actually betrays the scientific method, since the whole point of science is to discover the causes of why things happen as they do.
Rejecting the idea that the universe had a cause actually betrays the scientific method, since the whole point of science is to discover the causes of why things happen as they do.
It's funny how much you managed to get wrong in a single sentence.
Science looks for explanations. Explanation is not synonymous with "causality".
Causality, furthermore, is a phenomena that applies inside a space-time continuum. The universe IS the space-time continuum.
Trying to extract a phenomena that exists INSIDE the universe to apply it TO the universe itself is problematic at best.
Atheism is not a position on astrophysics.Really? Then atheists cannot cling to the multiverse explanation, since it exists outside the universe. You are left with no explanation why there is something rather than nothing. It "just is".
I'll take that with a grain of salt.How anti-intellectual.
Really? Then atheists cannot cling to the multiverse explanation, since it exists outside the universe.
You are left with no explanation why there is something rather than nothing. It "just is". How anti-intellectual.
Ironically, what you are actually describing above is the Christian viewpoint. You have no explanation for why god exists, or where he came from, he "just is". To make matters worse, on top of that your god isn't an explanation for anything we actually do see.
The explanation for why God exists is found in God's nature- God is a necessary being.
Why do you believe this to be true?
An infinite regress of causes cannot actually exist, so therefore there must be a first cause that is itself uncaused.
An infinite regress of causes cannot actually exist, so therefore there must be a first cause that is itself uncaused.
1. Why do you believe an infinite regress of causes cannot exist?
2. Why do believe the universe demands a cause of everything?
3. Why do you believe that if there is a first cause, it would be something you would label a god?
1. If an actual infinite number of causes existed, we would never be able to reach our present moment in time. So there has to be a first cause.
2. The universe doesn't demand a cause for everything. Rather, human reason demands it. Otherwise we are left with absurdity. Reason is supposedly the playing field I meet the atheist on, so I'm sure you can understand my appeal to causality vs. absurdity?
3. not "a" god, but the only God. There can be only one being that causes everything else to come into existence, and this being must be immaterial and non-corporeal.
An infinite regress of causes cannot actually exist, so therefore there must be a first cause that is itself uncaused.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?