Mike,
You have evidence, you simply choose to ignore it or not believe it. In your first post you made the comment that if you believed in just any old thing as the answer to the universe, it would be just as likely that the flying spaghetti monster or celestial tea pot were responsible for the universe as is God. In essence, you argued that there is no more evidence for God than there is for these mythical, fictional beings. I argue that point. Likewise, by choosing to believe that God is the answer to 'why' does not preclude the continued search for more answers. I fault those orthodox individuals who are content with 'God did it' and choose not to learn any more for themselves just as much as I fault those equally orthodox individuals who are content with 'God didn't do it.' Both views are fundamentally flawed. Niether explains why, and both should be asking why. 'I don't know' is only a good answer when you are actively engaged in searching for a better one.
I won't bother bringing up the fallacy of cultural relativism here, simply for the fact that we went those rounds and got no where. Once our God debate runs its course maybe we can try that again. Suffice it to say that you know I don't agree with you regarding right vs. wrong being relative to time and place (that statement is mostly for other readers who are uninitiated with our various sparring).
Now for the evidence. You are correct that there is nothing to suggest the existence of the tea pot or pasta monster, but there are various texts that speak to the existence of God. Of many gods, actually, as you have eluded to over the course of this chat. You have also made the point that not all of them can be right, in which you are also correct. So let's keep it contemporary and familiar and simply say that the Bible speaks to the existence of God. Now I understand that you don't believe the Bible, at least not word for word even if there are elements (historical or alagorical) that you may be okay with. The point, though, is that this religious text at very least makes the argument that God is more likely than the tea pot or pasta monster, and that the universe did not come about from a unicorn fart. It carries very specific language and instruction that make the case for a divine creator, or IMO an intelligent designer, that is responsible for the universe and all that is in it. Whether this evidence is up to your standard is another question, and we can move into a theological debate regarding the various religions at a later date. But this, I should think, will at least settle whether or not God is a reasonable alternative to the orthodox, fundamentalist view of pure science. Basically I mean to say that, if there were an intelligent designer, the Bible at least provides reasonable evidence that it was God rather than some other mythical creature.
I believe that if there were no God, we should never have thought to ask about his existence. One of the fundamental seperations between us and animals is our inquistive nature; we constantly strive to manipulate and adapt our environment rather than being adapted by our environment. Along with this, we have developed a need to know why something works, and for what purpose. Animals are content with knowing how - if they can get food from a certain place by doing a certain thing, they don't bother looking any further. But it is my opinion (since I can provide you with no tangible evidence) that man's spirit, a part of our divine design, gives us the ability and desire to know and ask why. Animals can show incredibly human-like emotions. We've all seen the YouTube video where the dog saves another dog from the middle of a busy road. Truly animals have a degree of spirituality about them, as is evidenced by some of their behaviors. But in my game designer analogy I posed the idea that God's intention is to use this universe to teach us to become like Him through experience. That being the case, we must have the desire and ability to ask why and work towards the answer. In brief, I believe that 'why' is a Godly question that only humans ask, and in the absence of God (i.e. were we simply a random roll of the dice) we would never have had the desire and ability to ask it. We would have simply relied on our animalistic tendencies just like the rest of the animal kingdom. But we don't. We are altogether different from every other creature on the planet, despite having close genetic ties to some of them. Without God, we should never have realized this difference for the fact that I don't suppose we would ever have known to ask about it.
Here's another, I suspect more philosophical, argument. I love my wife. I know when she's sad, or happy, or in pain, or just about any other emotion you can imagine. I can feel it. I can feel her. I suspect we all have someone we could say the same about. So using the scientific method, prove that you love that person. Prove the feelings you have for them. Provide for me tangible evidence to support your claim (loving someone that intensely seems like one of Sagan's 'extraordinary claims') and prove that it is true.
I know I can't do it. I can't explain or prove why I feel the way I feel for my wife using any physical method I am aware of. I can explain why through other means, but that's not going to suffice for a scientific query, is it? Yet it is all the same true that I love my wife and feel what she feels (to some degree or another). Using your arguments, Mike, then I am liar. Since I can't prove it through tangible means, then it isn't true and by suggesting that it is I am promulgating a lie. Can you explain this a different way? Tell me how you would go about proving to a scientific mind that you love someone.
Cory
No comments:
Post a Comment