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.
It many ways it has proven to be self-defeating. Among the top reasons why people de-convert are evangelical war on evolution and their antiquated stance on sexual orientation.
Well the topic being on Goulds ideas related to separation of majesteria I think makes sense in this regard in that we might not expect religion to be a scientific pursuit. You don't need scientific evidence to have faith. And also, faith can ultimately be in something that is true, even if it is not known via science.
God could hypothetically exist, even if you don't have a laboratory experiment demonstrating God's existence. Some people just think that belief without scientific proof is irrational and some people think that belief without scientific proof can still be in true beliefs and therefore can be rational.
And some people don't like believing in things if they don't have scientific evidence. And that's fine if they take that position. Other people are comfortable believing (albeit usually in unclear ways due to a lack of evidence) in a greater purpose, rather than believing in a purpose of "none". And who is really right, may never be known to us, at least not here on earth. But it just is what it is.
We have reasonable explanations for most of those things, including purpose and meaning. Not necessarily fully detailed, but reasonable hypotheses.There are some concepts that science just cannot touch on. Purpose and meaning. Why is there something rather than nothing. Why is matter self-aware in our case, rather than us all having the sentience of a rock? Why is our sentience experienced as beauty and awe? Rather than perhaps nothing or no experience at all?
These are some of core questions that drive religion. Questions of identity and purpose.
And likewise there are questions that religion cannot answer because it doesn't implement any particular methods for investigating the natural world.
In this sense, I think that Goulds ideas make sense.
Most things have evidence to back them up. There isn't a single reasonable hypothesis that provides a rational explanation for the existence of God.We have reasonable explanations for most of those things, including purpose and meaning. Not necessarily fully detailed, but reasonable hypotheses.
We have reasonable explanations for most of those things, including purpose and meaning. Not necessarily fully detailed, but reasonable hypotheses.
Whats your answer to that? (Sorry if you posted it earlier).....I'd be curious to hear why you think there might be something rather than nothing that exists.
And what would constitute acceptable evidence?Most things have evidence to back them up. There isn't a single reasonable hypothesis that provides a rational explanation for the existence of God.
That just kicks the question up a level. God is something too.God has created us.
That just kicks the question up a level. God is something too.
I dont like that answer because its not even a response to the actual question.Religions are faith based belief systems. It's fine if you don't like the answer or feel that it doesn't satisfy your curiosity.
But that is the religious answer. We exist because we were created to exist, to worship, love, give etc.
God of course is considered to be eternal.
According to some Cosmologists, like Lawrence Krauss, "nothing is not what we though it was."I'd be curious to hear why you think there might be something rather than nothing that exists.
I dont like that answer because its not even a response to the actual question.
The question you presented was: why do you think there might be something rather than nothing that exists?
Could you answer that one?
I see. No answer. I dont have one either from a naturalistic pov. There is something. It might be eternal. End of story.With respect to the physical universe, we exist because we were created. God is eternal, there is no answer for why God exists, He simply is.
I see. No answer. I dont have one either from a naturalistic pov. There is something. It might be eternal. End of story.
Like I said, you don't have to believe the religious answer. You don't have to have faith in God that has an answer.
Correct, I'm not referring to a purpose for life, I'm referring to an explanation for purpose itself; what it means and why we use it.Someone earlier mentioned a purpose for life being "none". I can't imagine you're referring to this. I'd be curious to hear why you think there might be something rather than nothing that exists.
For sure. I guess my main point is that your question doesnt really reveal a difference between believers and non-believers. "Something just is" unites them.Like I said, you don't have to believe the religious answer. You don't have to have faith in God that has an answer.
For sure. I guess my main point is that your question doesnt really reveal a difference between believers and non-believers. "Something just is" unites them.
Seems more of a similarity there. Both believers and non-believers are not equipped to answer the question.The difference is in my post above.
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?