Brian37 Wrote:Hawkins has said a god is not required. An
Which to you makes more sense?
Allah is a real god?
Or, humans made him up and marketed him?
Vishnu is a real god?
Or, humans made him up and marketed it?
The god of Jesus is a real god?
Or, humans made him up?
The Egyptian sun god is real?
Or humans made him up?
Claiming a generic entity with no name or organized religion still is claiming a thinking entity with no material in as a cause. It is still as much of a gap answer as those above.
Yeah I guess my description is still very broad. It's considerably more plausible than the gods you have mentioned though, right? We could still keep adding attributes that can be tested to see if they violate reason itself.
Quote:The bottom line is that nature and the universe do not need a god, nor are they a god themselves. The universe is merely a thing, like an on going weather pattern that constantly changes moves.
The limitation that science has on explaining things is that it can't give a reason for a process happening. Say I kicked a football in the air. We could do all sorts of measurements on it and also my muscles. Can science explain why I decided to kick it?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle