Why is an infinite regression of cause and effect considered more logical than a magical supreme being that set it all off? Is it that the former panders more to our own perceived cleverness?
Similarly, why is it considered scientific to ignore the possibility of events science is unequipped to deal with; specifically, these events appear non-causal within our scientific framework and therefore are untouchable to the scientific method which must assume causality. Is it circular to claim the only reality is the reality our science *can* deal with? Are we throwing out the baby with the bath water when we make such a claim?|||Simple. Cause and effect are observable. It's not a theory or belief. God isn't observable. This is almost certainly because this deity does not exist.
Have you heard of quantum mechanics? Is there a supreme being who triggers every nuclear decay? If you are talking about macro events, please name one which is not the result of a cause or which violates the laws of thermodynamics.
The very origin of the universe will forever be clouded in mystery. People want to believe God did it? Okay, show me ANYTHING that requires a God. Also, those who believe this, derive their information from the bible. That's the root source. Now, show me anything in the first two pages of Genesis which is consistent with what nature has revealed through observation and rational deduction from evidence. Now tell my why this god who created the universe stuffed it full of counterfeit physical evidence which flatly denies every aspect of the creation story in His Holy Word, the Bible.
Name an event science is unequipped to deal with. And I'm not talking about how the universe started. Science can't answer this any better than religious people can. Just saying God poofed it into existence is intellectually lazy, in my opinion.|||What the heck are you talking about? But back to your question . . .
Of course naturalism is logical, but only for women. Why cover up God's most beautiful creation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment