This argument makes sense to me, but… it raises the possibility of solipsism. Does the physical world give rise to consciousness, or does consciousness give rise to the physical world?… really, its about whether you believe that intelligence caused the universe or that the universe caused intelligence.
Aren’t a pair of sperm and egg intelligent or as intelligent of a human being? The only thing which does the rest of job is DNA, a simple long molecule, once an embryo forms.Arguments for God are based on common sense. For instance, first causes. Atheists tend to ignore first causes and choose ignorance of them. And, really, its about whether you believe that intelligence caused the universe or that the universe caused intelligence. The former makes more sense to me.
Consciousness is part of the real world. Even animals have consciousness as is seen from observation of cats, dogs, monkeys, etc.This argument makes sense to me, but… it raises the possibility of solipsism. Does the physical world give rise to consciousness, or does consciousness give rise to the physical world?
Or at least that’s your assumption. A solipsist of course would disagree.Consciousness is part of the real world. Even animals have consciousness as is seen from observation of cats, dogs, monkeys, etc.
But even chaotic quantum-scale events have a natural formal cause. That is, the physical constants that allow for the possibility of those seemingly chaotic events.Some will view the universe as partly chaotic, and random, with the possibility that some events do not have a natural cause.
A solipsist is part of the universe and has consciousness. Anyway, no one believes in solipsism.Or at least that’s your assumption. A solipsist of course would disagree.
I would say it was intelligent of God to create a universe in which DNA is possible, just as it was intelligence that created a universe in which man was possible. In addition, a slow miracle is no less incredible than a quick one.Aren’t a pair of sperm and egg intelligent or as intelligent of a human being? The only thing which does the rest of job is DNA, a simple long molecule, once an embryo forms.
You didn’t get my point. I meant that you could have a intelligent being, human, from something which is not intelligent at all, DNA so in principle is possible to have an intelligent being out of dust. This is obviously against the idea of intelligent design: matter can eventually give rise to an intellectual being given enough time.I would say it was intelligent of God to create a universe in which DNA is possible, just as it was intelligence that created a universe in which man was possible. In addition, a slow miracle is no less incredible than a quick one.
And 1.6 billion people believe in Allah, but what does that prove?Anyway, no one believes in solipsism.
It proves that Islam is a culture and a way of life that has great influence in the world today. Unlike solipsism which no one believes in and has no influence on anyone. Not only is there no evidence for the validity of solipsism, but also there is no reason why anyone would even want to believe it. Solipsism is a useless theory. It won’t do you or anyone else any good to be a solipsist.And 1.6 billion people believe in Allah, but what does that prove?
How do you know this?That benefit of the doubt has been “exhausted” during the millennia, when God had ample opportunities to interfere on behalf the victims, but did not do it.
Is a loving God obligated to prevent every hurricane or outbreak of influenza? That would kinda make sense because thousands of people would be affected. And if God protects thousands, what about forest fires, floods and smaller disasters that only affect hundreds of people? And if He protects hundreds, what about train derailments and school bus accidents which only affect a dozen or so?I see no logical problem with the assumption of a deistic, indifferent creator. There is nothing to support it, but there is nothing to contradict it either. The idea of a “loving” creator is irrational if you simply observe the actual state of affairs.
Of course we should be ready to change our position if we receive additional information. However, assuming that a loving God has solid reasons for behaving as He does is far from irrational.And the defense of: “we don’t know everything, therefore we should assume the best” is irrational. We never know “everything”, therefore we always form our opinions based upon the available information - while stipulating that if we receive additional information, we must be ready to discard our erroneous judgment.
He has. And apart from the experience of believers who are enlightened by God every day, you may also read the written record of God’s efforts to enlighten us if you wish to do so.The “ball” is in God’s court, if he wants to enlighten us, we must be ready to change our “verdict”. But not until them.
Especially if an **intellectual being **is directing the process.This is obviously against the idea of intelligent design: matter can eventually give rise to an **intellectual being **given enough time.
Actually that is not true. Matter cannot become Mind. DNA is Mind - it is a set of instructions telling Matter how to be. DNA is perfect evidence of the Mind of God, our Creator.You didn’t get my point. I meant that you could have a intelligent being, human, from something which is not intelligent at all, DNA so in principle is possible to have an intelligent being out of dust. This is obviously against the idea of intelligent design: matter can eventually give rise to an intellectual being given enough time.
Such a standard answer. I know this the same way I know that a “loving” father does not deserve the “loving” adjective, if he does not prevent his child to be abused by bullies, if he could prevent it. And to your question of: “how do I know if he did NOT prevent it other times” my answer is: “he did not prevent it THIS time”… and case is closed.How do you know this?
And would you be in a position to know if a major natural disaster did NOT occur because God prevented it?
Because he is supposed to be a “loving” father, and a loving father does not allow rapes and tortures and murders, if he can prevent them. If God would be assumed an indifferent “father”, the question would not even arise. No one would expect an indifferent parent to do anything for his “children”.Moving beyond the admission of our own ignorance of these things, we must also face squarely the question of WHY we believe God is obligated to prevent them.
Also “allegedly” there will be no pain and suffering in heaven. Shall we turn into “spoiled brats” in heaven?If God were to intervene in EVERY situation of potential pain and suffering, wouldn’t we become like spoiled children whining about a hangnail or some other trivial event that did not suit our fancy?
That is called “blind faith”, and it IS irrational.Of course we should be ready to change our position if we receive additional information. However, assuming that a loving God has solid reasons for behaving as He does is far from irrational.
Is atheism contradicted by the evidence?If a belief is not supported by evidence, moreover, if the belief is contradicted by the evidence, it is called blind faith.
Sounds like that guy is on the verge of discovering the law of gravity. Good thing he didn’t just blindly assume that rocks always fall down simply because they always fall down.A simple analogy: “Person X believes that if an rock is released from his grip, it will float upwards. He conducts zillions of experiments, and every time the rock drops to the ground. Yet he keeps asserting that the falling of the rock does NOT contradict his faith. He says: ‘Maybe there is a very good reason that the rock keeps falling down’, and that does not contradict that the rock should really float upwards.”
Doubtful, since Vera would regard all that as delusional even if Vera experienced it.Sounds like that guy is on the verge of discovering the law of gravity. Good thing he didn’t just blindly assume that rocks always fall down simply because they always fall down.
What kind of evidence would you like God to provide? What would be convincing, to you?
Should He come here Himself? Walk around among us? Perform miracles before our very eyes? Heal people? Revive them from the dead? Feed them? Teach them? Forgive their sins?
Would that convince you? You’d still be skeptical, maybe.
What would be the ultimate proof? If He allowed Himself to be killed, and returned to life - showing mastery over death, itself?
Would that convince you?
Atheism is simply a LACK of belief.Is atheism contradicted by the evidence?