Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="newusername" data-source="post: 6146523" data-attributes="member: 562064">If we are arguing that a god exists and that he provides meaning, then we absolutely must define what we mean by the word &quot;god&quot; and what we mean by the word &quot;meaning&quot;.&nbsp; As you define god later in this post, he is the master physicist who created the universe with all its laws and is unseen and unknowable.&nbsp; I do agree completely, though, that the area in which you propose god exists is very unknowable.&nbsp; In fact, it is so unknowable that it is preposterous to assert that he exists.The cosmological argument is both unsound and invalid.&nbsp; First, we of course have an infinite regress built into the god argument, and it is unclear why this one entity is able to overcome it other than by fiat.&nbsp; Further, it really does not make sense to ask what came before the universe; without time, there really is no &quot;before&quot; to speak of.&nbsp; Even if we establish the existence of something that gave rise to the universe, we are still not in a position to say anything reasonable about it.&nbsp; Calling it god or an entity or really anything is a non-sequitur.&nbsp; It is so far out of bounds that we cannot say, with any intellectual honesty, a thing about its properties, and in relation to us it resides in a state of non-existence.Further, the deist is making an incredible leap of faith that an atheist refuses to make.&nbsp; Perhaps there was a creator god, but we simply do not have evidence for it.&nbsp; Yes, there is something we have a hard time understanding, but that does not mean the answer to it must, necessarily, be god; that is an argument from ignorance.&nbsp; If evidence or reasonable argumentation comes up that a god exists, an agnostic atheist such as myself would gladly change my opinion, whereas a deist is operating on the assumption that a god must have created the universe.The Kalam cosmological argument is not much better than the original, either.That is an utter and complete bald assertion.&nbsp; What is your rational argument that supports the following premises:1) Evolution makes no sense if it is not the product of a higher being.2) Life producing life is non-sensical.3) The &quot;most natural&quot; course would be that life simply die out.These are all things that you&#039;re just saying are true, again by fiat.&nbsp; They are not really sound arguments, in my opinion.Just because you want life to have a purpose doesn&#039;t mean it does.&nbsp; With that said, I think our purpose in life is to be the most productive members of society and aim to minimize suffering in our lives and others lives.&nbsp; That&#039;s not a directive from god; simply a recognition of what is often called &quot;the human condition&quot;.&nbsp; It is the product of our very existence.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="newusername, post: 6146523, member: 562064"] If we are arguing that a god exists and that he provides meaning, then we absolutely must define what we mean by the word "god" and what we mean by the word "meaning". As you define god later in this post, he is the master physicist who created the universe with all its laws and is unseen and unknowable. I do agree completely, though, that the area in which you propose god exists is very unknowable. In fact, it is so unknowable that it is preposterous to assert that he exists. The cosmological argument is both unsound and invalid. First, we of course have an infinite regress built into the god argument, and it is unclear why this one entity is able to overcome it other than by fiat. Further, it really does not make sense to ask what came before the universe; without time, there really is no "before" to speak of. Even if we establish the existence of something that gave rise to the universe, we are still not in a position to say anything reasonable about it. Calling it god or an entity or really anything is a non-sequitur. It is so far out of bounds that we cannot say, with any intellectual honesty, a thing about its properties, and in relation to us it resides in a state of non-existence. Further, the deist is making an incredible leap of faith that an atheist refuses to make. Perhaps there was a creator god, but we simply do not have evidence for it. Yes, there is something we have a hard time understanding, but that does not mean the answer to it must, necessarily, be god; that is an argument from ignorance. If evidence or reasonable argumentation comes up that a god exists, an agnostic atheist such as myself would gladly change my opinion, whereas a deist is operating on the assumption that a god must have created the universe. The Kalam cosmological argument is not much better than the original, either. That is an utter and complete bald assertion. What is your rational argument that supports the following premises: 1) Evolution makes no sense if it is not the product of a higher being. 2) Life producing life is non-sensical. 3) The "most natural" course would be that life simply die out. These are all things that you're just saying are true, again by fiat. They are not really sound arguments, in my opinion. Just because you want life to have a purpose doesn't mean it does. With that said, I think our purpose in life is to be the most productive members of society and aim to minimize suffering in our lives and others lives. That's not a directive from god; simply a recognition of what is often called "the human condition". It is the product of our very existence. [/QUOTE]

Verification