Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Dawkins Is Wrong. Religion Is Rational [View all]eomer
(3,845 posts)183. Did already, thanks. Going back to a post where you actually said something...
The critical point is whatever "begins to exist" has a cause.
The implication is that there is something that did not have a beginning - it always existed.
The implication is that there is something that did not have a beginning - it always existed.
So what is it that always existed and thus did not have a beginning - why not the universe? If we're to choose between God and the universe being the thing that always existed why not choose the one that we at least know does exist - the universe? Isn't that an advantage over God? On what basis do we say that the universe didn't always exist?
What this argument actually demonstrates is that there is something beyond our comprehension. What would it mean to say that something always existed (whether God or the universe)? But on the other hand, what would it mean to say that there was a time when nothing existed, including time? What would it mean to say that space is infinite? But on the other hand, what would it mean to say that space is finite, that there's an end to it? These things are beyond our comprehension and likely to stay that way.
Adding God to the mix really does nothing more than give this problem a name, if we stick to what can be demonstrated. It's basically saying: there's something beyond our comprehension and we don't like that so let's create a concept of some entity, called God, that can do anything we want because we just made it up. So our created God doesn't have to either end or not end, neither of which seems possible in our experience of the real world, because our created God is so amorphous that it can be everywhere and nowhere at the same time and, voila, problem solved, comfort restored.
But the created God doesn't really solve anything - other than making some of us feel comforted. It has no real explanatory power because the only way it solves the problem is by saying that there must be some level that we can't comprehend at which the problem goes away - but that's what we would have said anyway before we created God.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
244 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Still trying to figure out here how rationalists can have anything rational to say about something
patrice
Dec 2012
#1
Agnostics can be either theists or atheists at the same time as being agnostic
Fumesucker
Dec 2012
#13
I doubt you are claiming that no agnostic has an opinion on the existence of a god or gods
Fumesucker
Dec 2012
#32
That is exactly how I recall it as well and still have a handful of friends who
cbayer
Dec 2012
#134
In terms of your first example, what you cite would render proof that Alberta exists.
cbayer
Dec 2012
#21
There were times when scientists actually believed they had proven that the world
cbayer
Dec 2012
#27
I disagree and have run into absolute atheists, just as I have run into absolute theists.
cbayer
Dec 2012
#95
You do realize that even Dawkins isn't an absolute atheist, as you define them. n/t
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#103
I am aware that Dawkins has described himself as one step below an absolute atheist.
cbayer
Dec 2012
#104
"prominent atheists who call for the death or subjugation...evidence...religious fundamentalists...
humblebum
Dec 2012
#176
Try Dawkins who wants us to think religion is the root of all evil and the cause of most wars.
Democratopia
Dec 2012
#182
For God's sake! He had a TV show called "The root of all evil" and the intention of that show was
Democratopia
Jan 2013
#236
Oh! So you think the question mark was meant to suggest the answer "no!" I saw that show, did you?
Democratopia
Jan 2013
#238
Let's put it this way: The clue about the show's content was in the title.
Democratopia
Jan 2013
#240
As an atheist, I find him to be beneath contempt. But thanks for watching his show!
Democratopia
Jan 2013
#242
Am I just not seeing where the quote is in your post? Nowhere do I find it.
cleanhippie
Dec 2012
#206
That revealed faith is potentially very dangerous, its in the first sentence you quoted...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#209
It seems self evident what he means, yet I'm not seeing where he said what you claim.
cleanhippie
Dec 2012
#210
Great. Now where is the quote in the post you put up? I'm just not seeing it.
cleanhippie
Dec 2012
#216
Neither can exist without the negation of the other, so they both imply one another in that
patrice
Dec 2012
#8
"Those atheists who harangue us ..." A Richard Dawkins question is not a harangue.
AnotherMcIntosh
Dec 2012
#3
The strong can stand-to haranguing and possibly become more authentic as a result of it . . .
patrice
Dec 2012
#9
Much as I loved my scientific education and training, physics was the one thing that
cbayer
Dec 2012
#23
Relativity was tested in the real world. Evidence that Einstein was correct can be observed.
Warren Stupidity
Dec 2012
#54
One can build a rational framework around fundamentally irrational beliefs.
Warren Stupidity
Dec 2012
#52
Agree. There was no god in his theories, but there was god in his life at various points.
cbayer
Dec 2012
#45
The difference between the giant purple and pink flying zebras is the number of people
cbayer
Dec 2012
#18
I can also think of reasons why people might believe, even though they have no hard proof.
cbayer
Dec 2012
#49
Which is why it is important to keep religion out of public schools, except as an
cbayer
Dec 2012
#64
Holy fucking shit, that's stupid, most people believed in astrology, and in the past....
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#100
But popularity doesn't make something more likely to be true, because it isn't evidence...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#106
The problem when it comes to religion, as you know, is that there is no evidence
cbayer
Dec 2012
#108
Its still a fallacy, besides that, once you get beyond the general concept of theism...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#111
You mean kinda like you label certain atheists "fundamenalists" because they disagree with you?
trotsky
Dec 2012
#152
We are going to dinner at our Italian friends house. He is Jewish and we are having
cbayer
Dec 2012
#37
No, I think that the possibility that something is true may be correlated with the
cbayer
Dec 2012
#60
Thousands of years of indoctrinating people into that belief caused those numbers.
cleanhippie
Dec 2012
#71
"A Flying Horse" is rational? A flying unicorn, maybe. But a horse? no way. nt
Speck Tater
Dec 2012
#48
How many people on this planet were indoctrinated into flying horse belief?
cleanhippie
Dec 2012
#72
He actually makes the case that both theism and atheism are based on faith and that
cbayer
Dec 2012
#61
I think I get the drift. At least in the western world, there were far more Jews than Christians
dimbear
Dec 2012
#86
So if God didn't always exist then it is something that began to exist and therefore has a cause.
eomer
Dec 2012
#171
Because it is part of the argument; why do you want to strip off the conclusion?
eomer
Dec 2012
#192
"put forth ideas that STILL demolish theistic arguments." If you are referring
humblebum
Dec 2012
#220
Do any theists even bother listening to atheists, most of us(including Dawkins) are agnostic!
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#99
Jesus fucking Christ nailed to two popsicle sticks? Could you be any more rude?
cbayer
Dec 2012
#102
But you don't criticize Dawkins, you(and the authors you link to) erect straw versions of him to...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#109
"there is no such thing as "absolute evidence" you are trying to redefine..." - It
humblebum
Dec 2012
#221
I'm saying that using the word "absolute" as an adjective usable with the word...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#222
It seems to be a matter of wording to you then. I believe that by the phrase "absolute evidence"
humblebum
Dec 2012
#223
Subjective "evidence" can only be observed by the individual who observes it...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#232
Yes, that is why it is called "subjective" evidence. And yes it is experience also, or observation,
humblebum
Dec 2012
#233
I must ask, what is a pegacorn, because it sounds awesomer than a unicorn. n/t
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#115
Are you really comparing proof that there is no god with proof that there is no cancer?
Moonwalk
Dec 2012
#122
Exactly my point. There is no way to compare scientific facts with religious beliefs.
cbayer
Dec 2012
#123
I defend religionists, but I don't offer factual support for specific religious beliefs.
cbayer
Dec 2012
#160
I'm glad that you got to see for yourself the total dishonesty and denial...
cleanhippie
Dec 2012
#186
It never ceases to amaze me. The pure hypocrisy and wilfull ignorance displayed is stupefying.
cleanhippie
Dec 2012
#187
When a person is arrogant enough to think they can possibly know everything,
DrewFlorida
Dec 2012
#196