Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonio  I made no such claim about nothingness. Part of my point is that we don't know everything about how the universe and life originated - we don't know what all the preceding events were. Admitting we don't know is not only acceptable, it's also intellectually responsible. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonio That's a false dichotomy. It relies on the baseless assumption that events are random if there is no intelligence to guide them. |
This statement implies that events can have a direction without a driver or catalyst. In other words it occurs in a vacuum. TP’s statement - that events have purpose and reason because of a creator - is no more baseless than yours. It’s a matter of belief. But if events are not random (as you have admitted they are not) that means they have a direction or a purpose or a reason; it’s going somewhere. If it doesn’t then it’s random. And having a belief in something is not false or baseless and is not an admission to not knowing how our universe got here devoid of any other explanation. And because you choose not to believe this doesn’t make it baseless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonio I'm saying that we cannot rule out the possibility of such an intelligence, however remote the possibility. But the burden of proof is on any claim that such an intelligence exists. |
For those that believe in this intelligence (we call God) there is no burden to prove it. It just is. But you can’t say there is an intelligence at the helm and in the same breath deny it’s a central controller; that this intelligence is some sort of purposeless, inanimate object.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonio I'm not sure of your point. I'm saying that the question of the existence of gods is a scientific question. It's not a question of faith or a question of theology. For example, we cannot perceive black holes directly with our senses, but we can perceive their effects. |
You’re relying solely on science to answer everything: our existence and God. You’re putting your faith in something to provide your answers. How is that any different than someone putting their faith in God? Neither has provided us with ALL the answers. How many times has science been wrong. Stephen Hawking felt he had proven that black holes destroy everything; that all matter breaks down in a black hole. He spent decades proving his theory and it split the scientific community in half. His theory would destroy years of research in quantum physics. Then he realized he was wrong; matter does retain its original information. I understand physics to a certain degree but these guys have minds that go way beyond anything I’m willing to put faith in. I’m not sure I trust the science. What if there really were no black holes? It turns out Pluto, after all these years, is really not a planet. WHAT! What about the science behind global warming? Do we really trust these scientists to give us factual information or are they just a bunch of really smart mathematicians making a bunch of stuff up. Because you can’t travel billions of light years into space to prove these things you have to rely on faith that they are even telling us the truth about things that “exist” in our universe.
I don’t doubt there are black holes; that’s not really the point. I challenge your contention that our beliefs are baseless. I believe that we are here for a reason; that the result of this creation has a reason; that the intelligence behind this is God Yahweh. I don’t think ours is any more baseless or false than those that rely on science.