|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
How is God the start?
Posted on: May 29, 2007 - 10:34pm
 Offline
How is God the start?
Why is it said that a God is the start of everything? Is it not obvious that the statement is false? I have never seen an argument for what created God. Theists automatically point to blind faith. A complete dodge of the question. If you admit something created you, how can you not ask what created that?
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
A very valid point. The cosmological argument can easily be reduced to an argument from incredulity, but also a prior requisite fallacy because to account for natural laws, it has to posit an entity which is not bound by natural laws, but any attempts to explain the existence of such an entity are ultimately incoherent (given especially that human epistemology is limited, obviously, to the natural world)
For instance, the Kalam Cosmological argument, instead of appealing to infinite regress, appeals to universal cause. The universe could just as easily have not existed as opposed to existed (a statement which every physicist on the planet would decry as utter falsehood), the existence of the universe demands an explanation, according to Kalam (and Craig, who might as well be ghosting his spirit).
Yet to fix this intractable, they posit a solution which fixes no more problems than it creates further problems, all of which are defended as being inherently unknowable. Why should such an entity terminate the regress? The universe demands an explanation, thusly there is an entity of maximal intelligence and power not bound by the universe? Presumably this entity demands an explanation for its existence as well? Perhaps a better explanation considering that such a being is highly improbable? God runs in direct opposition to natural laws, which state that simplicity begets complexity. The complexity of the universe could only have sprung from simplicity, and complexity increases in accordance with natural laws that provide systems with free energy, better known as evolution. A creative intelligence, not bound by these laws, but being the solution which does not demand an explanation, not having started from simplicity, and working up, but always existing in maximally perfect form, is more improbable than the quantum tunnelling prisoner experiment.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Speaking as an ex-evangelical... I can tell you its not 'blind' faith. Its what you are told your whole life... by parents, pastors, friends, elders, books. Things are said directly like "God is all powerful! He can do everything" and other things are said indirectly "Those poort atheists, they actually believe we came from a monkey, but we know what really happened." After hearing this your whole life (especially in the younger formative years when we are programed like sponge to absorb everything we are taught) these things, it doesn't feel like blind faith.
But I guess its more like the blind leading the blind... which would make it blind faith.
www.andyhanson.net
I love this quote, someone had posted it before but I can't remember who
"How do we define "nothing"? What are its properties? If it has properties, doesn't that make it something? The theist claims that God is the answer. But, then, why is there god rather than nothing? Assuming we can define "nothing," Why should nothing be a more natural state of affairs than something? In fact, we can give plausible scientific reason based on our best current knowledge of physics and cosmology that something IS more Natural than nothing!" ('God the failed hypothesis' Pg 132.)
The problem with the deity believer(incert lable here) is that they always start from the assumption that a "who" started it, and never consider that it is a "what".
God is merely a word humans made up to fill in lacks of information. God shrinks when we discover a nautral non-magical explination.
It is absolutly true that no human knows what happened before the big bang or what caused it. But, the idea that a dissimbodied brain hiding in the cosmos is patently absurd.
Whatever science we have yet to understand once understood will not lead to a bearded man in the sky or a devil with a pitchfork. These are just superstitions humans cling to out of fear.
Whatever causes happened during and before the big bang are a result of a natural process and does not only not need ancient myth to explain, but anyone attempting that should be laughed out of the scientific community.
People once thought a deity named Thor banged the clouds together to make lighting and thunder. We now see the absurdity in believing that.
Modern Abrahamic monotheism SHOULD NOT get a pass to avoid the same scrutiny that people used to discard the absurdity of Thor.
It is a perfectly valid question to ask "If X=deity exists, then how or what or who created it." That is a "begs the question" or "Infinite regress".
There are so many parodoxes even if the skeptic, for argument's sake gives the believer that starting position. Then you get into physical absurdities and moral insanity.
So, the skeptic is challenging the believer to consider that a process, uncaring and non-magical with no cognition or brain is the cause and not a "who".
The believer is unwilling to consider this because that would distroy their illusion and fantacy. It is exposing the "myth behind the curtain".
If it makes no sense to assing the begining of the universe to Osirus or Vishnu, why should the Christian, Muslim or Jew be so scared as to avoid aiming that question at their own claims?
"Whatever is" needs the foundation of the natural to be understood not ancient superstition of any label.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog