(June 19, 2015 at 2:20 am)Stimbo Wrote: Even granting that we haven't yet solved the question of the origins of the Universe and maybe never will, the two options you cited (the laws of physics were different enough to allow causation vs it could have been a supernatural entity) are not equally valid. Everything we can observe in nature is caused by other things in nature. Leaping to the least plausible explanation before investigating far more plausible ones is not keeping an open mind to the possibilities; it's actually a definition of delusion (or if it's not, it ought to be). Especially when that explanation is rooted in fuzzy feelings flavoured by mythology written by superstitious people who thought rainbows were magic.

I respect your views, but I think what you say is a matter of opinion. I find it much less plausible that the laws of nature/physics would ever allow for anything to come from nothing, than for there to be something above nature involved. With neither having any proof, it would honestly take more faith for me to believe the former.

Everything is just opinion. But there's opinion Lady....and then there's informed opinion

(June 19, 2015 at 3:37 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Everything is just opinion. But there's opinion Lady....and then there's informed opinion

Yes, this is true. Don't you agree though that we don't have proof of either scenario? So then this doesn't have anything to do with information. At least not at this time, since we don't have any information yet.

I thought the OT was allegorical........you telling me you don't think so after all...you think that god really, literally, -did- create all of this? Your idea of an allegory is starting to seem more and more like whatever you want to be true or untrue at a given moment in a given conversation. That's actually -not- what an allegory is.

(June 19, 2015 at 3:48 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yes, this is true. Don't you agree though that we don't have proof of either scenario? So then this doesn't have anything to do with information. At least not at this time, since we don't have any information yet.

But that doesn't mean we can't estimate probabilities

It's the mistake people often do: because we don't know for sure either way, that means the chance is 50/50 right? Nope. It don't work like that. We can assess which is more plausible.

CL, you are saying it's easier to believe that a "supernatural" event is responsible rather than an as yet undiscovered "natural" event?
You do know that there is no such thing as a supernatural event? One has never occurred, ever.
We find the idea ridiculous, you find it understandable simply because you already have subscribed to so much of it from the bible.
Tell me CL, why do all religious people shove god in any and every crack they can find.
I just find the concept silly.

What does supernatural even mean?

Everything that exists is a part of the natural world. Everything is natural.

(June 19, 2015 at 3:35 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I respect your views, but I think what you say is a matter of opinion. I find it much less plausible that the laws of nature/physics would ever allow for anything to come from nothing, than for there to be something above nature involved. With neither having any proof, it would honestly take more faith for me to believe the former.

Really? So where did this creator god come from?

It's argument from ignorance mated with special pleading. "I can't imagine how anything can possibly come from nothing without having to be created by a powerful, intelligent entity which came from nothing". Even if you fudge things to allow this god to have always existed, you are still faced with having to account for its origin and nature. See, sticking a label saying "God" onto a mystery has absolutely zero explanatory power; it tells us nothing about how the god created the Universe, by what mechanism, for what reason etc. It's a skyhook in a Universe of cranes.

And even if I have more faith than you in these things, didn't you just get done telling us that you believe in the existence of your god by faith in the absence of material evidence? Is faith a good thing or a bad one? Especially since there actually is far more evidence to indicate a natural, physical cause of the Universe than there has ever been for any god.

(June 15, 2015 at 6:44 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Like Polaris above, I too would like to know which arguments specifically the OP was referring to. I agree, there are a lot of illogical and petty "arguments" for the existence of God. It's a shame so many of us Christians do such a poor job explaining  or even understanding why we believe what we believe.

A shame, perhaps, but not really your fault; your source material allows for such wide and divergent interpretation that even many devout believers can't clearly explain what they believe or why they believe it. And people of the same faith (and sometimes even the same denomination) can come up with different explanations for many Biblical texts and moral lessons. If god could not explain it properly, there's no reason to expect you to understand it well enough to explain it to anyone else. And that should be reason to doubt its origins, IMO.

(June 18, 2015 at 9:38 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 18, 2015 at 9:18 pm)whateverist Wrote: Glad to see you spreading it around the forums CL instead of just minding your own nest.

What do you mean?

I meant it is good to see you taking part in threads you didn't start yourself.  It gives you the freedom to come and go more than one you start yourself.  Also shows some flexibility on your part.