I agree with you to a certain extent. We can only come to conclusions based on what comes through our five senses. The issue is how we interpret what comes to our five senses. I think there is substantial evidence, for example, for the supernatural. I also think that the scientific picture of the universe and life on planet matches the theistic/deistic model much more closely than the materialistic model. I think "blind faith" is somewhat of a misnomer myself. I would not be a Christian if I had not received what I felt was substantial and substative confirmation of what I believed.
>So if you believe in spontaneous creation >of life, that's just as much religion as believing >in a supernatural creator. That's why discerning scientists call the above a "hypothosis" and continue to challenge and test it rather than to say it has been determined as fact. Notice it's called the "theory of evolution". Call god a theory and most of the religious side will get all bent. To me it's all theory -- though one group of theorists encourage challenge and one generally doesn't. JB
why isnt this notion of supernatural creator not testable? that is simply not true. we atheists have tested this notion and it failed miserably. mounds of evidence to contrary... MOUNDS!! if you're going to concoct a grand story you'd better have something to show to support it or you're just another crank in the long line of cranks :-/
No, it's not only true if there's no god. It's true even if we can't tell, for sure, there is a god or not, as seems to be the case right now. _Given_ that we can't tell, for sure, there is a god, then as long as it's more rational to believe there isn't, then the only reason I can think of to believe in a god is emotional satisfaction. I'd also point out that even if a "god" exists, it's not necessarily the case that there is a "spiritual side to life" or that such a god exerts any influence on human affairs whatsoever. Of course, religious people are always quick to extrapolate the slightest suggestion that god's existance is _possible_ into (a) god's existance is _likely_ and (b) such a god is interested or intervenes in human affairs. So, what good reason is there to believe god exists? I cannot think of one. What good reasons are there to believe "god" -- whatever that means -- doesn't exist? (1) Mankind has always created gods to explain the world he lives in. From "tree spirits" to "thunder gods" to legends of dying and resurrecting "godmen" (yes, jesus wasn't the first!). There is every reason to believe the gods of today, like Yahweh, Allah, Jesus or Shiva are the modern god myths., (2) One of the properties of the modern, interventionsit "One True God" is that he is loving and one of the claims made about him is that he punishes disbelief in him by eternal damnation. I submit that the concept of eternal damnation is irreconcilable with a loving god. No theist I have ever met wants a non-loving or evil god. No religion that supports this concept of One True God I have come across is comfortable with the idea of no penalty for disbelief. (3) With respect to the non-intervensionist god of deism, the only claim that I have ever heard made about him is that he exists and he is invisible, intagible and leaves no trace of his actions. I submit there is no way to differentiate between such a god existing, an imaginary god or no god at all. So, again, apart from the emotional satisfaction, what good reason is there to believe god exists?
Here's a few examples: 1. The universe explodes from a singularity looking just as you would expect if there was a Creator. 2. The universe is finely tuned for life just as if you would expect if there was a Creator. 3. Universe mysteriously occurs on planet earth in impossible conditions just as you would expect if there was a Creator. 4. Modern psychological studies show that the traditional family is best statistically for children exactly as you would expect if there was a Creator. 5. Planet earth is covered with reports of the supernatural just as you would expect if there was a Creator. 6. The gospel explodes across the planet centering in Asia, Southern Africa and Latin America just as you would expect if there was a Creator. I could go on but I'll stop there. I am not saying any of these proves a Creator. I am just saying that they fit the theistic model much better than the "we're all just animals on a big rock in space" theory.
1) but why would a creator initiate a process from a singularity? why not just place it all here at once? 2)it is?? the universe is teeming with life?? show me. 3) dont understand this one. 4)evolutionary biology at work [not a creator] survival benefits 5)planet earth is covered with morons that cant think rationally if their lives depended on it. 6)why? 7) yes please stop: you think and sound like a crank :-/
1. The universe explodes from a singularity looking just as you would expect if there was a Creator. Oh, yes, that's the first thing I would expect. What is it about this universe that makes it "look like" there was creator? I can honestly not think of one thing. How can you even pretend this? What do you do, look through some astrophysics websites and say to yourself, "wow, crab nebula. YUP, that's JUST the kind of thing I'd expect to see in a Creator-made universe. Won't find one of THOSE suckers in a universe shaped by mindless forces!" 2. The universe is finely tuned for life just as if you would expect if there was a Creator. Ah yes, all those BILLIONS of stars and BILLIONS of galaxies. All there just for us. Yep, this Creator is one hell of a fine tuner. Oh, but I forgot, God "works in mysterious ways".. yes yes. 3. Universe mysteriously occurs on planet earth in impossible conditions just as you would expect if there was a Creator. Umm, did you mean "life" mysteriously occurs, right? And just HOW did you determine those conditions were "impossible"? 4. Modern psychological studies show that the traditional family is best statistically for children exactly as you would expect if there was a Creator. What! Why in the WORLD would I expect THAT to be the case? Man, I am truly sitting here laughing hard at that one. Absolutely ridiculous! 5. Planet earth is covered with reports of the supernatural just as you would expect if there was a Creator. Actually, I'd expect these reports to be VERIFIABLE if there was a creator. So far, how many are? About, um, zero? 6. The gospel explodes across the planet centering in Asia, Southern Africa and Latin America just as you would expect if there was a Creator. Ah, yes, and now we finally get to the crux -- Christianity. Are you really so ignorant of the historical processes that brought Christianity to asia, south africa and latin america? (Here's more good news for you -- China is expected to become about 20-25% christian in the next thirty to fifty years! Yipee! Bad new: islam is going to be the world's most populous religion. Bummer.) Personally, if there was this Creator, oh, let's just call him God hey? I would expect that EVERYONE would be christian! Why not? How freaking SIMPLE would it be for him? I would expect that he -- infinitely intelligent and all -- would not be so STUPID as to CONDEMN HIMSELF WITH HIS OWN HOLY (or "holey" -- ba-dum!) WRIT! EDIT And, btw, how do you think your reasons for believing in a god stack up against my reasons for disbeleiving in one? Would you not agree that wherever a supernatural explanation has been offered for a certain phenomenon it has ALWAYS been replaced by a natural one as soon as the natural one became available? Does not history give us ample examples of this happening? Does this not suggest to you that rather than those ancient peoples having "good reason" to believe the supernatural explanations -- "god" communicated with them, for example -- that they, instead, INVENTED them to satisfy their desire to explain the unknown? Given that we still have a bunch of uknowns, what reason have you to believe that this process of using "god" as a placeholder until a better explanation comes along is not still happening?
(2) One of the properties of the modern, interventionsit "One True God" is that he is loving and one of the claims made about him is that he punishes disbelief in him by eternal damnation. I submit that the concept of eternal damnation is irreconcilable with a loving god. No theist I have ever met wants a non-loving or evil god. No religion that supports this concept of One True God I have come across is comfortable with the idea of no penalty for disbelief. Sources for such a statement please. This is just not a true statement based on what I have learned in theory. Secondly it is mistated. Punished may be the wrong word. Arguendo, God is in heaven. You die. Do you want in to heaven from a God you do not believe in? How will you get in? Will you be judged, by whom, will you argue your case. Finally, your view of a theist's God's is not mine. He is not all nice all the time. According to Christian thought he is like a Father. According to Jews he is probably a lot tougher than that. Now, Jesus may be all loving but that is a different argument. This is just for information, I am neither trying to win or saying you are a fool, because I may be the one who is wrong.
I'm am not aware of any empirical test that shows there is no supernatural creator. Go ahead and tell us about one if you have one. I am also not aware of any tests that proves there is a supernatural creator. You either believe or not. Same goes for spontaneous creation of life. Either believe it, or not, there's no test that has shown it to be true.