(April 16, 2016 at 1:59 pm)Shadow_Man Wrote: As soon as you postulate cycle 1 as the cause of cycle 2, that begs the question as to what caused cycle 1, and so on. The problem is called "infinite regress."
I presume the Abrahamic notion of God - forbidder of shellfish and homosexuality, murderer of his own son, drowner of humanity etc - is not at all subject to such problems of infinite regress?
(April 16, 2016 at 1:59 pm)Shadow_Man Wrote: You will never succeed in your argument until you postulate something that escapes causality, and when you successfully postulate something that escapes causality you will have nullified your own refutation of God.
OK, here is my statement of faith (and it is a faith).
The day that anyone postulates - and successfully tests - an idea that overcomes the flaws in our current understanding of the origin of the universe, is the day we discover a far more detailed, rigorous, empowering and useful idea than the ridiculous notion that "Some guy did it all in seven days and made a woman from a rib".
On that day you will have to generalise your idea of God by yet another order of magnitude to keep him safe from the encroachments of science. You will have to write off a few thousand more bible verses as "just metaphors, not meant to be taken literally".
Yes, I have no evidence for my belief. No, I don't feel in the slightest bit obliged to justify my belief that a made up book of old rubbish cobbled together 1,700 years ago (or 1,400 years ago for that matter) will correspond even vaguely to the awesome truths uncovered by that new idea.
I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty.
