wow -- you guys have left out the obvious gaping hole that runs in so many people.... just about every person who does not engage in activities which help them strive for transcendence. when you really understand people and yourselves get back to me. if you spent any time dating lots of women... you understand this. understanding how people attempt to fill that void is the key to understanding people. When you figure out how they are filling the void you learn about their intellectual capacity and how much they are capable of deceiving themselves even how smart and self reflective they are. Some find a way to fill that whole (get it) with music or art or drugs maybe even sports for a while... but very few people feel integrated or are integrated or happy without filling that void. Why do you think the void is there? What do you think really fills it? Who put it there and why? Note.. you leftists are imo also completely wrong about kids. Kids seem to be with a thirst to find out why and how and they know when they get the correct answer.
Yes kids fill that void with whatever bullshit they are told by their parents, no matter how fucking crazy, the "correct answer" has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I suspect you are partly right... but I believe I see a predisposition to understanding the idea of a a good Creator. I am completely serious when I say Einstein got this exactly right. The following is the most important question.... (and you have to ask yourself why?) âThe most important question a person can ask is, "Is the Universe a friendly place?â ― Albert Einstein
The only time I think about the beginning of the universe is in our casual conversations and the occasional small sermon a good drinking buddy lays on me once in a while. We are damn good buds and it drives him crazy I don't believe the same as he does. So I'll be a good friend and let him get the preaching out of his system so we can get back to drinking beer and talking about women.
I let my drinking buddies bring it up. I can only think of one time where I brought it up... and it did not turn out well. with a guy who was just recently divorced and getting into eastern thought... and I tried to be subtle but it really upset him. So because I was just having kids and he was sort of abandoning his... he stopped coming by the house. We were moutain bike riding friends and golfed together... it was a loss. thats why I argue here instead of with my friends.
I hadn't thought of that, maybe that's why I do my shit here. You would be impressed with me if you knew how many times I've been preached to without telling them my views or for the ones who know my views how I listen patiently. I figure there's things about me they have to put up with too.
If your friends can't handle your politics/religion nor you theirs, you're not much of friends with each other. IRL you don't get angry or inflexible with your friends and lambaste them for not agreeing with you. That's why the arguments we have here aren't real life. We can get angry, abusive, and down right vulgar with each other here. We can even be that way with some IRL. But, you show your real friends more respect than that. That's why having a drink or dinner with one with opposite views you might meet here could ruin your argumentative nature here. Once you know the person you're going to have more respect for their views afterwards and will tone it down considerably when you talk to them here.
The problem with Prager's position, and with that of those who support design is seizes upon the "fine tuning" notion as evidence of one's theistic beliefs. It is not an open minded position but one of a proselytizer. No one knows that were the basic "constants" of matter different, that life would not have emerged under any other scenario different from the current universe. An open mind allows for the possibility of a universe produced by design, or not, and weighs the evidence. There is no hard evidence of a multiverse, nor any hard evidence of a creator. Goddamnit!
Jem, It seems you have brought up Einstein's name in conjunction with this "creator" business a time or too, as though to suggest that Einstein believed in a God as the creator of the Universe. And, of course, the palliative argument invoking "intelligent design" had not been dreamed up before his death. To save you possible future embarrassment, I think I should let you know that Einstein did not believe in anything like the Christian concept of a creator of the Universe, or a divine God, or a personal God. He said on more than one occasion that he was an agnostic. He also said his beliefs were similar to those of Spinoza. He had, admittedly somewhat late in his life, commented on how some of his remarks had been entirely misconstrued. One of those remarks was, "God does not play dice" which of course has been many times wrongly interpreted as indicating Einstein believed in the God of the religious masses. Here taken from the Wiki article (link below) is an interesting comment attributed to Einstein by his biographer: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein On a related matter, wouldn't our own Universe be sufficient to assure a probability of virtually 1 that lifeforms like those on our own planet exist somewhere else in our Universe? I don't understand why one needs to invoke the multiverse concept for this to be true.