<p>@sushmita the argument from evil starts with the idea of the theistic god (all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, etc.) so that it can attempt to disprove the existence of such a god. the hoped for conclusion is that the god of theism does not exist (either god doesn’t exist, or the theist must sacrifice one of god’s important qualities). to get this conclusion, the argument must start with the god of theism, one of whose qualities is “all-goodness”.</p>
<p>First of all, gotakun, you are ridiculous, and your arguments just sound bigoted and extreme. I just cannot take you seriously when you call the billions throughout history who have found God and comfort in His love schizophrenics. I mean, you’re writing off the VAST majority of people throughout history as schizophrenics. </p>
<p>But if you insist on only working in a logical framework, well that works too. There are logical, rational arguments for God’s existence. I outlined a couple a few pages back. </p>
<p>If you do nothing else, please watch some of Father Robert Barron’s videos on YouTube. Really, I beg you. If nothing else he will at least articulate what I’m trying to say better than I will.</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - Why do we believe in God?](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP2rLgrBtTI]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP2rLgrBtTI)</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - Father Barron on The New Atheists](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe5kVw9JsYI]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe5kVw9JsYI)</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - Fr. Barron comments on Religion & Science](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8yRWrUjnL8]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8yRWrUjnL8)</p>
<p>There are others on a very diverse array of topics. Please watch a couple.</p>
<p>Edit: The Father will often comment on his own videos if you want to argue with someone with much more knowledge than me.</p>
<p>I think that if one were to truly take a deep look into it, icanread, they would find that much more good is done in the name of religion than evil. And that wouldn’t even take into account the measureless personal comfort that religion provides.</p>
<p>“The operational definition at that time was “someone who listens to logic and reason.” Everyone is delusional to some degree, but normal people modify their schemas when presented with new information and logic that contradicts their current beliefs. Edit: By the way, that’s what science is.”</p>
<p>And there’s the disconnect. There is no information or logic that contradicts my belief in God. Science and religion are wholly compatible.</p>
<p>Gotakun is stepping outside of politically correct boundaries, which is why you call him bigoted. His actual argument, although displeasing to hear, has credence. Because you associate a negative connotation to schizophrenia, when you are called one, you automatically have a defensive reflex and think he is essentially calling you a ■■■■■■; he is only making a point. And to many atheists, theistic belief systems and the arguments used to defend them seem, essentially, ■■■■■■■■. Instead of arguing within the normal boundaries of logic, you just say “NO LOGIC LOL GOD EXISTS” and use that to validate your argument. That doesn’t work, and it is annoying and only somewhat delusional.</p>
<p>Anyway, if something can exist outside of logic and the normal boundaries of space and time, what makes that something God?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If it is possible for something to evolve from nothing or be uncreated, then it is possible that the universe came from nothing and was uncreated. Saying that a supernatural entity created the universe is superfluous when it is just as possible, if not more likely, that the universe came from nothing.</p>
<p>Ok, I realize that it’s more of him just being politically incorrect and holding an extreme view than being bigoted. I take that back, and will give gotakun the benefit of the doubt.</p>
<p>But you write something like this: </p>
<p>“And to many atheists, theistic belief systems and the arguments used to defend them seem, essentially, ■■■■■■■■. Instead of arguing within the normal boundaries of logic, you just say “NO LOGIC LOL GOD EXISTS” and use that to validate your argument. That doesn’t work, and it is annoying and only somewhat delusional.”</p>
<p>Did you take the trouble to read my few previous posts? There ARE logical and rational arguments for God’s existence. (Watch a couple of those vids I linked to.) There are many of these, come up with by great minds across the centuries.</p>
<p>There are very smart people around the world who believe in God; the leader of the Human Genome Project is a devout Christian (after growing up an atheist. Isaac Newton, a man who INVENTED calculus and did more to explain the universe and how it works than anyone in human history, believed in God. If anyone had a reason not to believe in God it was Newton, who was the first to know why the planets moved and why things fell to Earth. But he didn’t, his discoveries brought him closer to God. So no, you’re not bigoted. You are simply close-minded, and, when you call theistic arguments “■■■■■■■■”, ignorant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t believe in any of that. It makes sense that a mother gives life to a baby or that a father feeds a starving child - that’s pretty biological (instinctual). I do believe in lust and perhaps “chemical love.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is probably pretty harsh, but I have to agree. Not on a literal level, but certainly on a metaphorical level. I’m actually anti-religious, which may explain why I agree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, personally, no. But I do think that many people in this world are merely following something they’ve always been told. That isn’t always a bad thing, by any means. Religion has done at least as much good as it has done bad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it’s healthy to be skeptic. That’s how we learn. Did you automatically trust your parents when they talked you about, I don’t know, the boogie man? Of course not - you used your skepticism to ask questions about the world around you. I don’t think that’s scientific. In fact, I don’t even think believing in God is a scientific thing. For example, my agnosticism kicked off when I realized that almost every religion claims to be the “right” one. That’s not science, it’s just critical thinking (unless you feel that critical thinkers exist only on high horses, in which case, I pity the human race).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s nothing wrong with believing in god. For some people, it can be very soothing. Go for it. Religion can (but is not always) be he problem. Fundamentalism. Witness:
the Crusades
those Christian terrorists who just got picked up in the MidWest
Islamic terrorism
etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t need or want god for any of those purposes. When a person dies, it’s like going to sleep - unconsciousness takes hold, but consciousness never returns. I hope to live my life in an exhausting way. I hope that when I’m eighty or ninety, I’ll have lived such a completely life that I’ll look forward to a nice, long sleep. I am motivated to be a good person because I believe in doing onto others as they do to you (law enforcement doesn’t hinder this, either). I don’t have to worry about ending up in hell. In that sense, I feel more likely to live my life with less guilt and despair.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. At least in a secular world, a person of any religion can live their life more comfortably. It’s not a problem to me if a gay man in Minnesota gets married. It is a problem to me, personally, if, say, I were forced to cover my head in public. It’s not a problem to a Christian if the court house has the Ten Commandments. It may be a problem to a Sikh or a Muslim.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Believing in god doesn’t preclude intelligence, nor does not believing in god suggest it.</p>
<p><em>facepalm</em>…Someone said something about how belief hurts no one …are you kidding me? The Inquisition? 9-11? Religious wars? All of them done in the name of god. The people who head this stuff don’t “use religion to further thier agendas”…they actually literally interpret thier religious texts. If you literally interpret most religious texts you should believe that; gays should be stoned to death, women are inferior, abortion is wrong…bla bla bla blaaaa…all in all…BS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, but I’m not going to go watch videos of rehashed faulty logic that I’ve seen and heard many times before. I’ve gone to atheist conventions, I’ve gone to Catholic church, I’ve been a devout Catholic, I’ve debated both for and against God and I’ve researched numerous theories that contend to ‘prove God’ through ‘logic’. The simple fact of the matter is, you cannot prove that something exists unless there is some evidence it exists. This universe existing is not that evidence.</p>
<p>But if you want to, explicate your preacher’s ‘logical arguments’ for the existence of God and I’ll attempt to refute them. I’m not going to waste my time watching another youtube video claiming to prove the existence of God though. I’m sure it just espouses various flawed arguments such as the ontological argument, which is surely one of the great logical arguments provided for the existence of God centuries ago…</p>
<p>Newton lived centuries ago in an extremely theistic society, and was probably indoctrinated from birth. Not to mention that saying anything against the existence of God or opposing anything written in the Bible was instant condemnation (see Galileo). Sure, some great scientists believe in God, how does this help your argument at all? Great scientists can also be delusional. Many other very intelligent persons have been/are atheists, such as Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, most of our founding fathers including Benjamin Franklin, you get the point. We can both throw out names.</p>
<p>I’m not close-minded at all. Hell, I was once a Catholic. I’d say I’m one of the most open-minded people I’ve ever met. I don’t care if you believe in God, good for you. I live in one of the most religiously conservative states in the country and just about everyone in my school is a rich, conservative, Christian white person. It’s cool if you believe in God, it’s just difficult for me to understand how people don’t outgrow such beliefs, and yes, it is my right to believe you are delusional if you have such beliefs, just like people who still believe in Santa Claus are considered delusional. Big deal.</p>
<p>
They sound extreme because they are extreme. Being extreme, in itself, is not necessarily bad. The label “extreme” comes with negatives connotations, which gives me the burden of justifying my arguments even better than what normally would be accepted, and I am more than willing to do just that.
I honestly don’t have the desire to read through every post to find out which one you were talking about. I did find this from you, which seems to contradict some logical, rational argument you supposedly made:
</p>
<p>
I will watch as much as I can tolerate and tell you the truth about the videos. I won’t break them down for you to explain each logical fallacy. I just don’t have the patience, and that would be counter-productive, as mentioned earlier.
By 1:51, he already jumped to conclusions that were not logically justified. He did that about three times in a row, ending with “and that’s who god is.” I paused the video and will not watch any more. I’m sorry to tell you this, but what he is saying is nonsense.
This video is meaningless. It’s a personal attack on “new atheists,” a false correlation between atheism and existentialism, and a citation from a fictional book (the Christian bible). I watched half of this video.
He is not addressing any of the relevant arguments that pit science against religion. He gives the false impression that he is accomplishing something with his pseudo-rebuttals, when the only people the arguments to which he’s referring even matter to are Christians, like you.</p>
<p>I can tell you, in all honesty, this “Fr. Barron” would not stand up to even me, given I had any preparation time at all. I wouldn’t let him make bogus points about irrelevant arguments and pretend that he had won any ground in the debate. This character is solely for the benefit of Christians, within their deluded framework.</p>
<p>I have to give credit to crazyday. He hit the nail on the head and stole my rebuttal from me :-).
There is a fear of being mentally “ill,” so people have an incredible aversion to being labeled. I could easily write an article on my opinion as to why this is, but it’s not relevant right now. The point is that I’m not making a personal attack when I label the majority of the world schizophrenic. If you take it personally, it’s your own fault for having a negative association with an otherwise neutral term.</p>
<p>Edit: I would respond to more questions/statements, but this thread is way too crowded. It’s only fun for me when I’m the underdog ;).</p>
<p>
Oh, brilliant. Except you missed my point by several light-years: I was never arguing for/against the existence of God.</p>
<p>ikillers, go back to the dark ages please.</p>
<p>@applicannot</p>
<p>“I don’t believe in any of that.”</p>
<p>Do you believe in spirituality? All I’m trying to get is that there IS something deeper than what can be explained in a scientific proof. If you can’t believe that, then I guess we’re at an impasse. I’m talking about the spiritual, things that you can’t reduce into mathematical formulas. Can you explain the literary power of poetry, how it deeply touches people’s lives, in an equation? Can you explain why men and women cry when they hear the Ave Maria? There is no biological reason for this, it is not needed for survival or the survival of next of kin. </p>
<p>“I think it’s healthy to be skeptic. That’s how we learn. Did you automatically trust your parents when they talked you about, I don’t know, the boogie man? Of course not - you used your skepticism to ask questions about the world around you. I don’t think that’s scientific. In fact, I don’t even think believing in God is a scientific thing. For example, my agnosticism kicked off when I realized that almost every religion claims to be the “right” one. That’s not science, it’s just critical thinking (unless you feel that critical thinkers exist only on high horses, in which case, I pity the human race).”</p>
<p>When I say get off I’m referring more to an elitism that I see within the atheist and especially the new atheist viewpoint. I think this threads a case in point, with people writing off religion as a mental disorder and all rational arguments for God’s existence as ■■■■■■■■. </p>
<p>And then there’s just the fact that this entire forum is generally a very elite place, with many going to the top universities in the world and the vast majority at the least getting a college education, a privilege most of the world does not have. There is little voice for the poor and downtrodden on this site, whose views I think are as important as any’s.</p>
<p>I do think it’s healthy to be a skeptic. I’m just skeptical of your so-called skepticism. For years I went to a Unitarian Universalist church, where most of the congregation did not believe in God. Over the past few years I have grown deeper in faith, through reading and otherwise, in what was a very natural, rational and spiritual process for me.</p>
<p>“When a person dies, it’s like going to sleep - unconsciousness takes hold, but consciousness never returns.”</p>
<p>How can you prove that scientifically? </p>
<p>@crazyday</p>
<p>“Sorry, but I’m not going to go watch videos of rehashed faulty logic that I’ve seen and heard many times before.”</p>
<p>All I can ask is for you to give them a chance, but, if not, that’s OK too.</p>
<p>“Many other very intelligent persons have been/are atheists, such as Albert Einstein”</p>
<p>Albert Einstein was not an atheist. A quote of his on the subject: “”[E]ven though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are “strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies […] science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind […] a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist.” </p>
<p>Or he could be schizophrenic.</p>
<p>@gotakun</p>
<p>“I honestly don’t have the desire to read through every post to find out which one you were talking about. I did find this from you, which seems to contradict some logical, rational argument you supposedly made:”</p>
<p>Quote:
Thinking of God in a scientific context can only get you so far, because in the end God is above and beyond anything that we can even think.</p>
<p>When I said that I did not mean that there are not perfectly logical and rational arguments for God. I meant that at some point there must be some faith added into the equation, as God can never be PROVED scientifically (or He wouldn’t be God). Then again, you can’t PROVE the theory of Gravity, or PROVE atoms exist, those are both theories, and always will be.</p>
<p>In terms of the videos, all I can really ask is that you give them a fair chance. I absolutely disagree. I don’t see how he’s making logical leaps, but that’s your prerogative to think that.</p>
<p>“a false correlation between atheism and existentialism”</p>
<p>There’s a real correlation there.</p>
<p>“I can tell you, in all honesty, this “Fr. Barron” would not stand up to even me, given I had any preparation time at all. I wouldn’t let him make bogus points about irrelevant arguments and pretend that he had won any ground in the debate. This character is solely for the benefit of Christians, within their deluded framework.”</p>
<p>Well I have no doubt that he would absolutely tear you apart in a debate. His arguments appeal to all, even if all don’t agree with him. That’s why you see so many debates on his videos, between atheists and theists and sometimes the Father. He makes people think at the very least, and I believe he does much more.</p>
<p>But the problem with debating with you is that you are so close minded. In a way you ARE stuck in a bubble. There really is no point in debating you, if you continue to insist, against thousands of years of more philosophy and theology than you can imagine, that the Christian world view is a delusion. In a way you’re stuck in a state of denial that you purport is the domain of theists.</p>
<p>No thank you, Christian.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not at all. Plenty of people do, though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right. I don’t believe in the spirit or in spirituality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well it would be silly to try to do that with math; but with psychology, I’m sure it’s possible. Being a skeptic - and relying on logic - doesn’t mean that everything boils down to math. Being spiritual or emotional doesn’t mean that crying to Ave Maria is some evidence of a higher power. Humans have biological and instinctual needs (raising the young or fight or flight, for example), but we are also sentient beings. This means that we can go above and beyond that of other animals. I’m not an emotional person, so none of what you said applies to me, but I do understand. I was deeply moved by the book NIGHT by Elie Wiesel. Was it something spiritual? No - it was imagining the horror and heart-wrench that Elie Wiesel went through. What about Ave Maria? That’s not something spiritual - someone who sings beautifully can awe someone else, and awe can inspire a tearful reaction (e.g., when I got into Stanford). I don’t see any reasons why “spirit” or God would be the only explanation for this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s elitism; I think it’s research and critical thinking. Was it elitist when some people thought the world was round? I do believe that, in time, religion will wither. I think that some people have reached that moment in history before others. When we look back at the Ancient Greeks, we don’t take their pantheon seriously. 3000 years from now, do you think anyone will take yours seriously?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that’s pretty elementary. When you go to sleep, unconsciousness takes hold (your brain dims your senses) and your body functions slow. When you die, your brain actually stops functioning, and your body comes to a complete halt. With no brain function whatsoever, you can’t think, see, hear, taste, touch, remember, move, etc. So it would not be difficult to “prove” (although you really shouldn’t use the word “prove” when referring to science) what happens when you die.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m far from poor and downtrodden, but I am low-income.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, wait, I’m lost… you’re skeptic of skepticism? Then you’re not a skeptic - you’re a follower. There are plenty of atheist followers, too - atheists who never question that there is no god, they just accept it from their parents/friends/whoever. Also, a process isn’t “rational” if it’s “spiritual.” If you took a spiritual journey, then good for you. But don’t call that rational (consistent with or based on or using reason).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is exactly why I don’t believe in God. This is circular reasoning. You can’t think about God because God is above and beyond thinking. Isn’t that convenient? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s the thing. It takes a leap of faith to believe in God - just like it takes a leap of faith to believe in Santa Claus. A rational person (consistent with or based on or using reason) does not take “leaps of faith.” However, gravity is most certainly a law; i.e., proven. Atoms are, indeed, a theory. So are germs, cells, and thermodynamics. However, you are probably confusing the colloquial use of the word theory and the scientific use of the word theory. Let me clear that up for you.</p>
<p>“In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tell me about that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s the thing. His argument - and the argument for the existence of God - is appealing. That doesn’t make them rational or logical, it just means people want to believe it. It’s the same thing with the degradation of the environment. People don’t like to think about what the world would be like if we continue to pollute it, but since that’s uncomfortable, people like to believe that human ingenuity will get us out of the mess once it happens. Similarly, people don’t like to believe that when they die, it’s over, even when there is empirical evidence to say so. That’s why people believe in God.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I doubt it (even for gotakun, but I can’t speak for him). YOU are the one who seems to think these arguments are logical. You are stuck in a bubble of religion. You firmly believe in something - you have FAITH - and that has blinded you into thinking you are right. I think that’s a shame. That’s why I’m anti-religious in addition to agnostic - brainwashing is almost never a good thing. I’m perfectly okay with people who believe in god or a higher power. I’m not okay with people who are religious, or people who seem to think that the concept of “god or a higher power” is somehow logical. That’s a problem we need to address.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just because something has existed for thousands of years doesn’t mean it’s true. I’m sure there are several hundred years and lots of writing on a geocentric universe, but I’m thinking no one believes that anymore. I do believe that Christians are deluded and that they have been purposefully mislead. Look at it this way: religion controls the people. He who holds the keys to heaven controls the people. Religion convienently has laws like do not steal, lie, cheat, murder, be gay, whatever. Those look a lot like the laws any society has - why? Because religion is a way to enforce peace (murder and you’ll go to hell! is a lot more threatening than murder and you’ll go to prison!) and to explain the unknown. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but it has been twisted and it has been taken way too far.</p>
<p>"I was deeply moved by the book NIGHT by Elie Wiesel. Was it something spiritual? No - it was imagining the horror and heart-wrench that Elie Wiesel went through. "</p>
<p>Even though you don’t believe in a spirit, which makes any arguments rather useless, I would argue very strongly that it WAS something spiritual.</p>
<p>“I don’t think that’s elitism; I think it’s research and critical thinking. Was it elitist when some people thought the world was round? I do believe that, in time, religion will wither.”</p>
<p>I see that you kind of think yourself as simply very progressive and ahead of your time in rejecting God, religion, spirituality etc… But don’t compare it to believing the world is round. Maybe elitist isn’t the right word, maybe it’s arrogance. See you’re not just rejecting ol’ crackpot religion and unenlightened people who believe in God, you’re rejecting the majority of human thought throughout history. You’re throwing Socrates, Plato and countless others out the window for Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. </p>
<p>“3000 years from now, do you think anyone will take yours seriously?”</p>
<p>Yes</p>
<p>"This is exactly why I don’t believe in God. This is circular reasoning. You can’t think about God because God is above and beyond thinking. Isn’t that convenient? "</p>
<p>You can know God but not understand him fully, fully understand his majesty and power. But I wouldn’t expect you to consider that, as you do not believe in the spiritual.</p>
<p>"Well, that’s pretty elementary. When you go to sleep, unconsciousness takes hold (your brain dims your senses) and your body functions slow. When you die, your brain actually stops functioning, and your body comes to a complete halt. "</p>
<p>I think this is an important point, and in some ways I think death proves the existence of God as well as anything. Can you really think about death deeply, ponder what will happen to you after you die, and think that you will simply cease to be? That you will just go to sleep? I cannot.</p>
<p>“That’s the thing. It takes a leap of faith to believe in God - just like it takes a leap of faith to believe in Santa Claus.”</p>
<p>That’s a bad analogy. As I’ve said there are logical and rational arguments for God, but, yes a leap of faith must be made at some point. But then again, I must make a leap of faith to to go to sleep soundly and believe that I’ll wake up the next day. </p>
<p>"That’s the thing. His argument - and the argument for the existence of God - is appealing. That doesn’t make them rational or logical, it just means people want to believe it. "</p>
<p>They are rational and logical. Watch some and comment on them.</p>
<p>“I doubt it (even for gotakun, but I can’t speak for him). YOU are the one who seems to think these arguments are logical. You are stuck in a bubble of religion. You firmly believe in something - you have FAITH - and that has blinded you into thinking you are right. I think that’s a shame.”</p>
<p>I take serious issue with that. Because I think these arguments for God are logical does not make me indoctrinated or brainwashed. I’ve come to my faith by reading and listening to viewpoints from both sides. I know the arguments, as I said I was raised primarily with no reason to believe in God. By the time I converted to Catholicism my sophomore year, I was thinking independently. I have found more truth in Christianity than I have found anywhere. </p>
<p>"Look at it this way: religion controls the people. He who holds the keys to heaven controls the people. "</p>
<p>That’s not what religion is, and that statement is simply ignorant.</p>
<p>In the end I think it might come down to the “Why”. Science is very good at the how, but, in the end, if you go back far enough, Science cannot explain the why. </p>
<p>Please watch some Father Barron videos. “Against the Youtube Heresies” is one.</p>
<p>
Wow, that was disrespectful. I took time out of my life to watch your stupid videos and tell you the truth about them, and you ignore it? You embarrass yourself by recommending “Fr. Barron” videos, or to anyone who already knows of him, by even mentioning his name. My recommendation is that you never do it again.</p>
<p>Also, s.t.f.u. and realize what everyone is trying to tell you. YOU are the one stuck in the delusional bubble. Science is the opposite of closed-minded, idiot. That you even said what you did in the quote indicates to me that you are not even worth speaking to. Ironically, it’s because you are so closed-minded. The difference between my accusation and yours is that mine is actually justified; yours is just a desperate, last-resort defense mechanism attempting to preserve your own integrity.</p>
<p>Are we being serious with this thread? OP obviously just wants to create the longest running thread on cc…</p>
<p>What was disrespectful? All I said was to give them a fair chance, and if you did, thank you. If anything I was referring to one of the videos which you said you only watched to the 1:51 mark. </p>
<p>" You embarrass yourself by recommending “Fr. Barron” videos, or to anyone who already knows of him, by even mentioning his name. My recommendation is that you never do it again."</p>
<p>I will continue to recommend his videos, as they represent the faith in an articulate, rational and accessible way.</p>
<p>“Also, s.t.f.u. and realize what everyone is trying to tell you. YOU are the one stuck in the delusional bubble. Science is the opposite of closed-minded, idiot.”</p>
<p>Well of course I realize that “everyone” on this thread is trying to tell me this. I disagree. I am open to both sides. Your arguments have made me think and question my beliefs. You have not said anything, though, that makes my belief in God any less. This is a good exercise, and if someone truly convinced me that God did not exist than I would admit it and become an atheist. After all of this, though, I am firmly convinced that there is more evidence for God than there ever could be against him. I am sorry if I offended you with my bubble comment, I just hope that you at least consider that there is something outside of science, something deeper than what we can measure</p>
<p>Please don’t call me an idiot, it doesn’t become you.</p>
<p>"Scientism. In the videos, I have appealed to classical and contemporary arguments for the existence of God, demonstrating that there must be a stable ground for the contingency of the world and an intelligent source for the intelligibility of the world. I am met with some version of the following assertion: Matter, or the universe as a totality, or the big bang, or "energy” is an adequate explanation of all that is. When I counter that the big bang is itself the clearest indication that the entire universe - including matter and energy - radically contingent and in need of a cause extrinsic to itself, they say that I am speaking nonsense, that science gives no evidence of God’s existence. I agree, insisting that the sciences deal with realities and relationships within the world but that the Creator is, by definition, not an ingredient in the world he made.</p>
<p>What I am up against here is not science, but the philosophical position that reality is restricted to what the empirical sciences can measure. When one of my opponents asserted that science alone deals with reality, I informed him that he was involved in an operational self-contradiction, for he was making an unscientific remark in support of his claim. I am struck by how philosophically impoverished my YouTube interlocutors are. Though many can speak rather ably of physics or chemistry or astronomy, they are at a loss when the mode of analysis turns philosophical or metaphysical."</p>
<p>That’s what I’m trying to say said better.</p>