Cory,
Your last was by far my favorite rebuttal so far. I feel like you really laid a well thought out argument, and raised some very good questions. Thanks.
You are absolutely right, a good skeptic should never discount anything when trying to explain something. If god is a possible answer for a question of the unknown, then god as a possible answer should not be discounted. But the other side of the coin (the point that I've tried to make clear) is that you can't assume any answer, however logical, without proof. You can't logically take god as the answer without proving it. You are right that God is one possible answer, and I will acknowledge that, but I am also acknowledging that any myriad supernatural causes are also possibilies. I am also acknowledging that natural forces are possibilities. Evidence and history point to natural forces as explaining the universe, which is why I believe in that explanation.
You keep pointing as God as an explanation to why the universe exists. My argument is that there is no, "why" the universe exists. It just does because that's the nature of the universe. To ask "why" is to put a human characteristic to a very non-human universe.
Since I believe that the Bible is a wholly human creation, I'm sorry, I can't concede that God of the Bible indicates any better that a god is more likely than a celestial teapot or spaghetti monster. They are all concepts created by the human mind, and without proof, all are just as valid arguments. If I believed in a god or intelligent designer, then yes, I would be willing to look at God of Christianity as a plausible explanation.
In your last argument you said, "I believe that if there were no God, we should never have thought to ask about his existence." But I don't understand why you believe that. We come up with ideas all the time that have no basis in reality. I can think of a unicorn right now and wonder if he exists. That doesn't mean he's more likely to be there.
I believe our inquisitive nature is a product of our evolution. There isn't a sharp distinctive line between humans and animals. We are not the only animals to make shelter. We are not the only animals to make tools. We are not the only animals to go to war. We are not the only animals to fear death. Of course there's a distinction within the levels of which we do and understand these things, but that too is a product of our evolution. We still rely on our "animalistic" tendencies in many ways. Humans are pack animals that have distinctive leaders and followers. We have reflexes, and we most definitely allow our emotions to get the better of us sometimes. Some of us are genetically predisposed to be more likely to engage in certain activities than others. These are just a few examples of how we too are "animalistic". I know we like to think that we are different in many ways, but the distinctive line between humans and animals just isn't there. It's a very "blurred" line at best.
Now.. the part that I really wanted to get to: the "Love" discussion.
You introduced this argument to me when we first decided to have this debate. I'm actually surprised you didn't mention it before in our formal debate. Out of all of the arguments posted so far, I find this is the most compelling.
I don't deny the existence of love. I feel it just as I'm sure almost everyone does at some point. You can't see it. You can't put it into a test tube, and yet we all know what it is when we say the word. One could say the same about the plethora of human emotions and feelings. How can I prove something that is seemingly intangible? Well, I'm going to attack this from a couple of different angles.
Physiologically speaking one can most certainly "measure" love and other emotions. There is ample evidence to support the feelings we have are based off of many factors that take place in the body. We have hormones that can drastically change our moods. Our levels of testosterone and estrogen are excellent examples of hormones that change our mood. Mind altering drugs and natural neurotransmitters also affect and produce emotional responses. An overabundance of dopamine can make a person angry and agitated. A deficit of serotonin can make a person depressed. And a sudden spike of oxytocin combined with dopamine - can make a person fall in love. When people in love are stuck in an MRI the parts of their brains that light up in response to photos of their loved ones are the same parts that light up in response to addictions and urges. Love is a craving. It's a desire like hunger. It's tied directly to dopamine response. Just as I have the capacity to feel hungry or thirsty, I have the capacity for feeling love. I know that sounds robotic and cold, but really, does knowing how it works take away any of the beauty that is this feeling?
Beyond physiology, love is a concept within the human mind which doesn't exist beyond the bodies of those who feel it. This is similar to greed, power, values, beauty, etc... If you want to make a comparison of god to this idea, I full heartedly agree. I think god is most definitely an abstract concept which is the product of the human mind.
I would also argue that you can measure physiologically the power of god on people. I'm sure just like love, when someone "feels" god, their serotonin levels change, their hormones change, they get a dopamine boost, etc. It can be explained physiologically, and there's nothing supernatural about it. If you want to argue that god is a concept, fine, but I'm not arguing that the "concept" of god doesn't exist. I'm arguing about the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent being which created the universe. That god isn't a concept. That god is either real, or he's not.
-Mike
**I hate to not give credit where credit is due. I did a little bit of research specifically when answering the argument about "love", and I think it's only fair to link to those authors' responses.
Kylyssa Shay
Austin Cline
No comments:
Post a Comment