Tr0n
Newbie
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2003
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 0
Because it created the universe.Let me butt in for a moment and unequivocally state that this is crap.
If you're going to consider the Big Bang a "god", then you need explain why it's deserving of the title. What makes it more than just the Big Bang? What does calling it "god" communicate? Is there anything remotely informative in doing as such?
It just waters down the term "god" into meaninglessness. My wall is God. My shoe is God. Air is God. Combustion is God. They may very well be, but then I don't see anything meaningful, substantial, or relevant coming from the classification of such things, much less their worship.
Others have suggested that the several logical and philosophical arguments for the existence of God miss the point. The word God has a meaning in human culture and history that does not correspond to the beings whose necessity is proven by such arguments, assuming they are valid proofs. The real question is not whether a "most perfect being" or an "uncaused first cause" exist; the real question is whether Yahweh or Vishnu or Zeus, or some other deity of attested human religion, exists, and if so which deity. The proofs do not resolve that issue. Blaise Pascal suggested this objection in his Pensées when he wrote "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — not the god of the philosophers!", see also Pascal's wager.
Some Christians note that the Christian faith teaches salvation is by faith, and that faith is reliance upon the faithfulness of God, which has little to do with the believer's ability to comprehend that in which he trusts. In other words, if Christian theology is true, then God's existence can never be demonstrated, either by empirical means or by philosophical argument. The most extreme example of this position is called fideism, which holds that faith is simply the will to believe, and argues that if God's existence were rationally demonstrable, faith in His existence would become superfluous. In The Justification of Knowledge, the Calvinist theologian Robert L. Reymond argues that believers should not attempt to prove the existence of God. Since he believes all such proofs are fundamentally unsound, believers should not place their confidence in them, much less resort to them in discussions with non-believers; rather, they should accept the content of revelation by faith. Reymond's position is similar to that of his mentor, Gordon Clark, which holds that all worldviews are based on certain unprovable first premises (or, axioms), and therefore are ultimately unprovable. The Christian theist therefore must simply choose to start with Christianity rather than anything else, by an unreasoned "leap of faith". This position is also sometimes called Presuppositional apologetics, but should not be confused with the Van Tillian variety discussed above.
An intermediate position is that of Alvin Plantinga who holds that a specific form of modal logic and an appeal to world-indexed properties render belief in the existence of God rational and justified, even though the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. Plantinga equates knowledge of God's existence with kinds of knowledge that are rational but do not proceed through demonstration, such as sensory knowledge.
You cwazy druggie. ^_^ Actually I want some mary jane right now....People can cast judgment on my smoking all I want. I accept the risks of my addiction. Nor do I defend my smoking as much as I defend my right to smoke.
The difference is that I recognize the shallow, dangerous nature of my habit. I couldn't care, but I recognize it nonetheless. You, however, just sort of dismiss or ignore much of the argumentation heading your way and act as if the notion of your god is somehow still valid.