In believing everything the scientist(creation) tells you;but not believing anything God(Creator) tells you?Evan if He tells you via some of His other creations?
Is not the Creator more reliable a source than the creations?
2007-01-10 15:06:43 · 21 answers · asked by Maurice H 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
What creator?
2007-01-10 15:09:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm sorry, but I've never heard from God. And here's the logic that says he doesn't exist.
First, you have to define the term "God." The problem with most theists is that this term is a moving target.
In addition, because there is no evidence either for or against the existence of God, you cannot use deductive logic (a+b=c; therefore c-b=a). You can only reach a conclusion by inductive reasoning using the balance of evidence (90% of A is also B; C is B, so the chances are 90% that C is also A).
I will assert (and others may shoot this down) that the only RELEVANT definition of God states that he intervenes to circumvent natural laws.
If God circumvents natural laws, then it is impossible to understand natural laws. All scientific findings would have to include the stipulation, "it is also possible that these results are an act of God, a miracle, thereby making our research meaningless."
However, since we have been able to expand our knowledge of natural laws (evidenced by every appliance in your kitchen), the scientific method works in this discovery. And the likely conclusion is that God, at least the intervening kind, does not exist.
Additionally, if God is defined as all loving, all powerful, and all knowing, then it is impossible to explain suffering. Either God is not all loving (he acts sadistically), not all powerful (he cannot prevent suffering), or not all knowing (he created suffering by mistake because he didn't know the consequences of his actions).
If God is less than these and/or does not intervene in our existence, then he is either non-existent or irrelevant. The classic argument is that I cannot prove that a china teapot is orbiting the sun directly across from the earth's orbit. But while I cannot prove this is not true, the evidence against it is compelling.
The evidence against God is equally compelling, and while it is not possible to prove beyond any doubt, it makes more sense to live your life as if there were not God.
It is more compelling to me that humans have invented God to reflect the thoughts of the ruling powers in a particular time. Because humans are always looking for reasons, when none are found, it was the natural inclination to declare the cause to be "God" (or gods). As the faith grew, miracles and laws have been ascribed to this Divinity, and an orthodoxy grows up around it.
Now it seems unhelpful to believe in such superstition. The only matters that aid in our ongoing well being are work, location, health, sustenance, and pure, blind luck.
So that's why I don't believe God exists. And you know what? It's okay if you do believe God exists.
2007-01-10 23:16:09 · answer #2 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Let me reverseyour question back at you. Wheres the logic in believing somthing that you cannnot prove exists but not believing in what the people in front of you are telling you that has been proven? Its like saying dinasaures still exist just becuase some 5 year told you he saw them in the closet even though you very well know theres no dinosaur in the closet. You need to question life. If you live your life without questioning things all you are doing is just going around in cirlces. Its our true nature to question the things around us and all religeon does is just stop that process. Wouldnt it make more sense for us to say that we are the creators and god is our creation. People like to take the easy way out of things. We like to have an easy explanation for everything around us. Though it is our nature to be curious about the life around us our natural laziness superceeds our want to explore. People that go beyond that boundary and question everything aorund them and not just live their life according to the unproven figure that is god are called athiests. How can god be a more reliable scource than us when in no way has it been proven that there is a god in the first place and in the chance that there even is a god dont you think that he might be telling you through us that the reason we have our so called free will which is to live our lives without being limited by him. If god is great why punish us by sending us here. The truth is all around you you just havent looked yet.
2007-01-11 00:33:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're absolutely right, the "creator" would be a more reliable source than anyone else. But what evidence do we have that the "creator" ever spoke to anyone? How do you know what he said? If you answer "the Bible," how do you know those are his words?
2007-01-10 23:15:21 · answer #4 · answered by . 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ummmm...yes, IF you believe in the CREATOR. Personally I think this is a silly argument. I can see scientists, actually know a couple, I have NEVER seen God, have you?
2007-01-10 23:14:01 · answer #5 · answered by Amanda D 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who is Evan? And why would he tell me something through his creation? ;-)
Atheists are by they very nature skeptical, they don't believe everything they hear. They do not believe in a god because they simply see no evidence for him.
2007-01-10 23:11:11 · answer #6 · answered by Tlazohtzin 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, if there was a creator, but there isn't. Would you believe your parents if they told you there was no Santa? Why not ask Santa himself if he exists. Is not Santa a more reliable source than your parents?
2007-01-10 23:13:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
One FANTASY book, does not explain natural events. You look at other religious folk, as if a disease, when really, all religions have the basic same meaning...Once or more gods to prove why nature happens. It is completely asinine. Whatever you want to believe is fine, but stop questioning me when I'm trying to leave you be!
2007-01-10 23:11:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is a standard argument. It has a standard answer: Who created the Creator? This can go on forever.
2007-01-10 23:12:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Reliability of sources, hmm?
Just so I understand you correctly, you're talking about believing what you're told, in writing, by human beings, right?
Sure, I agree that it's pretty strange to do so without examining the evidence behind the words.
(Sorry, couldn't resist...)
2007-01-10 23:15:54 · answer #10 · answered by zacchaeus 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Torah is what happened when Hebrew monotheists mixed two Egyptian myths together with Babylonian myths, and a dash of monotheism.
2007-01-10 23:11:23 · answer #11 · answered by Nowhere Man 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋