Is not creation enough evidence of a higher entity?

I think you could argue a case that there's some spark to creation. I don't know about an old man in the sky, designing everything with blueprints, but the case could be made that the beauty of creation is something of a miracle in itself. At least it's not the sludge dimension.

 

Don't worry about it. If people are genuinely irritated, they won't respond; either that, or they won't visit the thread. There are people who believe that spirituality has something to do with a god that resolves problems of its own making by demanding payment from others. They even believe that the god's currency of choice when it comes to payment is blood, suffering, and death. Compared to that kind of perverted idea, your threads are not so irritating as you might think.

 

The fact that you might get back talk doesn't necessarily mean people are irritated with you, and if they are, so what? My mama told me never to talk politics and religion because they upset people, but that would be really dull. People do tend to have strong emotions on both subjects, and if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. But these forums provide a great opportunity for a mostly uninhibited exchange of ideas with people who may be coming from a completely different worldview--and anonymously at that. No need to hold back, except for observing normal rules of civility. I may tell you your beliefs are absurd, but why should you care. I hold strong opinions and tend to speak my mind in ways others often find abrasive. You don't know me and I don't know you. We might learn something from the encounter. I would draw the line at overt proselytizing. If you blanket the forums with religious messages, you might get resistance. Other than that, go for it.

 

Not sure why there'd be a problem discussing religious beliefs, or there really should not be a problem really.
There's certain things quite evident to me that I don't understand with other people, but that's not my business. Honestly I think if you're trying to improve your life and you find religion as that outlet then that's awesome and good for you.

I've never understood the differences between the same belief like, catholic, orthodox.. etc. or what those subtle differences really are. I'd like to one day. -shrug-

 

Yes I think they are evidence of God. That doesn't mean any of the religion stories are "true" though.

 

I've always felt that humans just can't accept that there are some things we just can't figure out so we created religion to explain them.

Even science had to come up with unrealistic explanations. Take the word infinity for example. Science came up with a symbol that makes loops and a twist than comes back to the starting point. Really? Infinity is infinity. There was no beginning and there will be no end.

 

Thank God For creating plants, and animals to eat those plants, and animals to eat the animals that eat the plants, and for parasites that eat all of them, and viruses, and cancer, and radioactive plutonium, and all the causes for slow suffering death, and all the causes fast suffering death, and volcanoes, and earthquakes, and tsunamis, and tornadoes...

Yup, it's all God's work, I'M FUCKING SOLD!

 

I can relate to the feeling/thought/belief but its still not evidence in the technical sense.

 

I seriously don't know if the site messed up or images of God's wonderful creations are too much for some to deal with.

Since I never got a notice, I'll just assume it was a fuck up.





There! Fixed it.

Hashtag: aww nature! Right?

 

Allah is great..

 

Allahu Akbar

 

Those things are certainly enough to get people thinking. In fact, this ground is well-plowed--formally articulated in Saint Thomas' Aquinas' argument for design as proof of God and continued in Paley's watchmaker argument. The integrated complexity of the universe is a major consideration in my own faith, and several scientists have been impressed by evidence of "fine tuning", or the so-called strong Anthropic Principle.

However, there are comebacks. The terms "designer" and "creator" imply an intelligence behind the process. That assumption is in keeping with how things get created and designed in the world we're familiar with. But skeptics argue that there are other routes to integrated complexity. Natural selection is one of them. By eliminating the mistakes, nature can select ever more adaptable life forms.Theoretical physicist Lee Smolin has applied it to a theory of origins of complex, integrated universes like ours Those universes that can't sustain life are eliminated and nobody is around to argue about how they became so messed up. Skeptic Michael Schermer adds: ""any universe with the configuration that gives rise to pattern-seeking animals will appear designed, and those universes with laws that do not lead to life will not appear designed"Theoretical biologist Stuart Kaufman contends that self-organization can account for a good deal of order. Evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins argues that a God who created such marvels would have to be complex and wonderful too. Was God designed or created? Then there is the notorious statement by particle physicist Steven Weinberg who concluded that : "the more comprehensible the universe becomes , the more pointless it seems. The major non-theistic alternative to a designed universe which scientists tend to favor is M-theory which postulates alternate universes.

Physicist Paul Davies argues that Occam's razor, the principle of parsimony, favors intelligent design over the complexities of M theory; but Occam's razor is just a rule of thumb.
Bruce Mazet, a skeptic writing in Skeptic magazine, vol. 6: 50-55, reviewed the evidence for a finely tuned universe. Skeptics Society--The Case for God He concluded that the likelihood that the conditions for life could arise by chance are astronomically small. He acknowledges that M-theory might provide a plausible explanation, but also observes "there is no evidence whatsoever that this infinite number of hypothetical universes exist, and thee is currently no known means of obtaining such evidence. So he concludes "if it is acceptable to postulate the existence of hypothetical universes, it is acceptable to postulate the existence of God." On that basis, I submit that integrated complexity and Occam's razor provide substantial evidence of design--in the legal sense of being enough evidence to convince a reasonable person, even though other reasonable people might not be convinced. Not really proof, but something to go on. It seems to be a plausible as the alternatives, and it provides the basis for an optimistic outlook. There is no proof--just enough to support an educated bet. As a qualified fideist and Okie existentialist, I join Martin Luther in making a "joyful bet" on God.

Storch has asked what I mean by God. Besides the definitions I've given--"the supreme or ultimate reality" and "the summation of human idealism"-- I'd add "the felt presence of a Higher Power 'in whom we live and move and have our being'". Note the absence of omnipotence, omniscience, and anthropomorphic attributes. My views have been shaped by process theology. I'm suspending judgement on those traditional attributes.

 

I don't think your posts are irritating, and I was not trying to mock you. But I do want to point out that even if it were proven that the universe needed a creator in order to exist, the universe's existence doesn't point to any specific creator. It could be something that no one has thought up yet.

It's an interesting question and one that humans seem drawn to naturally. As far as I know all cultures throughout time have had a creation myth. I, however, am unwilling to see the universe and just assume a creator.

 

Said the Muslim terrorist with bombs strapped to his chest thinking he will get 40 virgins in heaven

 

didn't it used to be more virgins? is heaven running out of virgins?

 

Seventy-two I think. Family Guy can explain it better than I can.

 

whoa. rude.

 

Do you find it fair when people stigmatize and stereotype your religion or fellow believers? This is one reason why certain folks here do indeed roll their eyes when they see you're on your subjective soapbox again preaching about birthdays (lol) or sin. You're very repetitive. That and they still recall you're that LornaDoom person.

 

Well fuck
You're making it hard for people to like you

I take all my supportive posts back
You done me dirty

 

Why are you guys still listening to him?

My stomach churns when people disrespect religion in general.