5 ms·

Correctly assessed. He uses the very same evidence of the existence of the explosion and the absence of evidence to explain the explosion part of the evidence

by ak39 8y ago

Correctly assessed. He uses the very same evidence of the existence of the explosion and the absence of evidence to explain the explosion part of the evidence as reason to believe that "it is God". I usually end the dinner conversation when I keep asking "how?". On some very rare but weaker moments he might trip and admit "I don't know". At which point I end it by saying, that's a very scientific thing to say. :-) He adds colour to our lives.

BetaCygni 8y ago
To be honest, we don't know either, so the agnostic viewpoint (compared to atheistic) would be that it is equally valid. Either you believe in random chance or you believe in God. I'm always perfectly happy when someone calls the big bang the moment of creation. It could have been.
- Nursie 8y ago
  >Either you believe in random chance or you believe in God Not really true. "We don't know exactly how the Cambrian explosion came about, but have a lot of good evidence on how evolution works, which allows us to probe deeper into theories about what happened" is not equivalent to "it's all random chance!"
  - BetaCygni 8y ago
    Isn't evolution random chance + selection? That's how I've always seen it.
- ak39 8y ago
  Not sure the point you're making. I do not differentiate between agnostic and atheistic thought. They are both the same thinking/belief systems in my view. An agnostic believes there could be a "god/creator" (but does not pursue this thought any further than "maybe"). An agnostic also believes there may not be a God/Creator given the absence of evidence to justify such a belief. An atheist believes that there is NO god/creator given the absence of evidence to prove the existence of such a being. If evidence had to exist then the atheist will believe the existence of such a being based on such evidence. That sounds exactly the same. As to your point about "we don't know" - well, not knowing is perfectly fine in science. We cannot ascribe to or embellish and fabricate imagined facts and agents to any unknown phenomenon without evidence.
  - BetaCygni 8y ago
    > I do not differentiate between agnostic and atheistic thought. I find it very interesting that in de US there seem to be a lot of gnostic atheists (they know for certain there is no god, and are very vocal about this), while in Europe most people would be agnostic atheists, and they don't care as much.
    - olavk 8y ago
      In order to decide whether you believe in something, you have to know what "something" the question is about. The concept of "God" in western society is often so vague it is impossible to have an opinion either way - for some it means "the absolute", for some it means "the force of creation in the universe". I don't think you can meaningfully say you don't believe in such unspecific concepts. But if you go into more concrete religious beliefs, like "God created the world in seven days" or "God punished the wife of Lot by turning her into a pillar of salt" or "Jesus is the only path to God", then it is easier to decide whether or not you actually believe it or not. My impression is Biblical literalism is more widespread in the US compared to Europe, which in turn is easier to decide for or against. Especially the discussion about evolution vs religion is almost entirely absent in Europe. Framing evolution as opposed to a belief in God means it is pretty easy to become an atheist, since we have overwhelming evidence for evolution.
- olavk 8y ago
  A belief in evolution have nothing to do with atheism. Many religious people believe in evolution.
- rsynnott 8y ago
  Most religious people (or at least most widespread religions) essentially accept evolution, you know. Hard evolution denialism (especially young earth creationism) is largely peculiar to certain forms of evangelical Protestantism and some factions of Islam, these days.
reacweb 8y ago
Taking as an axiom that God exists and loves us, we can deduce that God wants us to be free because you do not want someone you really love to be your slave. If there was a way to prove the existence of God, we would not be free to believe or not. As a result, if "God exists and loves us", there is no way we can prove he exists.
- Drakim 8y ago
  > Taking as an axiom that God exists and loves us I think the axioms you need for this kind of argument is that: is God exists, God is human-like, and God loves us. Why would a cosmic being care more about humans than bacteria? Why would he value things like freedom over slavery? Why would he care if we believed in him or not? Those are entirely human qualities and concepts.
  - reacweb 8y ago
    You care about the things you love. The single "human-like" trait of my reasoning is to be able to love. I do not like the "human-like" term because it involves so many negative connotations. If God is perfect, I can not imagine him as "human-like" ;-).
    - Drakim 8y ago
      Human-likeness is not a very popular trait to attribute to a higher power because it shows the underlying anthropomorphism at work. There is no reason to think that if there is some sort of higher power, it has an any bigger interest in humans than it has with atoms or planets. To assume that is an assumption, which shouldn't be hidden.
  - malcolmwhite 8y ago
    > Those are entirely human qualities and concepts. These are entirely human concepts only if you've already accepted some different axioms of your own. The Christian argument is that valuing freedom over slavery, and wanting worship, are divine qualities and concepts. And humans share those things because they were made after God's likeness for the sake of being loved (and more importantly, loving God in return).

by ak39 8y ago

BetaCygni 8y ago

To be honest, we don't know either, so the agnostic viewpoint (compared to atheistic) would be that it is equally valid. Either you believe in random chance or you believe in God. I'm always perfectly happy when someone calls the big bang the moment of creation. It could have been.

Nursie 8y ago
>Either you believe in random chance or you believe in God Not really true. "We don't know exactly how the Cambrian explosion came about, but have a lot of good evidence on how evolution works, which allows us to probe deeper into theories about what happened" is not equivalent to "it's all random chance!"
- BetaCygni 8y ago
  Isn't evolution random chance + selection? That's how I've always seen it.
ak39 8y ago
Not sure the point you're making. I do not differentiate between agnostic and atheistic thought. They are both the same thinking/belief systems in my view. An agnostic believes there could be a "god/creator" (but does not pursue this thought any further than "maybe"). An agnostic also believes there may not be a God/Creator given the absence of evidence to justify such a belief. An atheist believes that there is NO god/creator given the absence of evidence to prove the existence of such a being. If evidence had to exist then the atheist will believe the existence of such a being based on such evidence. That sounds exactly the same. As to your point about "we don't know" - well, not knowing is perfectly fine in science. We cannot ascribe to or embellish and fabricate imagined facts and agents to any unknown phenomenon without evidence.
- BetaCygni 8y ago
  > I do not differentiate between agnostic and atheistic thought. I find it very interesting that in de US there seem to be a lot of gnostic atheists (they know for certain there is no god, and are very vocal about this), while in Europe most people would be agnostic atheists, and they don't care as much.
  - olavk 8y ago
    In order to decide whether you believe in something, you have to know what "something" the question is about. The concept of "God" in western society is often so vague it is impossible to have an opinion either way - for some it means "the absolute", for some it means "the force of creation in the universe". I don't think you can meaningfully say you don't believe in such unspecific concepts. But if you go into more concrete religious beliefs, like "God created the world in seven days" or "God punished the wife of Lot by turning her into a pillar of salt" or "Jesus is the only path to God", then it is easier to decide whether or not you actually believe it or not. My impression is Biblical literalism is more widespread in the US compared to Europe, which in turn is easier to decide for or against. Especially the discussion about evolution vs religion is almost entirely absent in Europe. Framing evolution as opposed to a belief in God means it is pretty easy to become an atheist, since we have overwhelming evidence for evolution.
olavk 8y ago
A belief in evolution have nothing to do with atheism. Many religious people believe in evolution.
rsynnott 8y ago
Most religious people (or at least most widespread religions) essentially accept evolution, you know. Hard evolution denialism (especially young earth creationism) is largely peculiar to certain forms of evangelical Protestantism and some factions of Islam, these days.

reacweb 8y ago

Taking as an axiom that God exists and loves us, we can deduce that God wants us to be free because you do not want someone you really love to be your slave. If there was a way to prove the existence of God, we would not be free to believe or not. As a result, if "God exists and loves us", there is no way we can prove he exists.

Drakim 8y ago
> Taking as an axiom that God exists and loves us I think the axioms you need for this kind of argument is that: is God exists, God is human-like, and God loves us. Why would a cosmic being care more about humans than bacteria? Why would he value things like freedom over slavery? Why would he care if we believed in him or not? Those are entirely human qualities and concepts.
- reacweb 8y ago
  You care about the things you love. The single "human-like" trait of my reasoning is to be able to love. I do not like the "human-like" term because it involves so many negative connotations. If God is perfect, I can not imagine him as "human-like" ;-).
  - Drakim 8y ago
    Human-likeness is not a very popular trait to attribute to a higher power because it shows the underlying anthropomorphism at work. There is no reason to think that if there is some sort of higher power, it has an any bigger interest in humans than it has with atoms or planets. To assume that is an assumption, which shouldn't be hidden.
- malcolmwhite 8y ago
  > Those are entirely human qualities and concepts. These are entirely human concepts only if you've already accepted some different axioms of your own. The Christian argument is that valuing freedom over slavery, and wanting worship, are divine qualities and concepts. And humans share those things because they were made after God's likeness for the sake of being loved (and more importantly, loving God in return).