No God you say? Please read me.

[pmurray]

I’m new here and will probably repeat previous discussions, for this I make no apology but beg your indulgence.

I have noticed that in my short time of being here that there is a strong anti-big invisible man who lives in the sky attitude, which to me does not suggest scepticism but closed minds.

Tell me why it is so hard to accept that there may be a big invisible man who lives in the sky and to accept that the universe was created from a big bang is easy. Surely, the existence of a big invisible man who lives in the sky is just as believable as something being created from nothing.

It’s easy to accept that life can form on a barren rock but not a big invisible man who lives in the sky creating life.

I propose to this forum that the big invisible man who lives in the sky exists and created life, the universe and everything.

Here’s some pre-prepared answers for you.

1> The big invisible man who lives in the sky always existed and there was never a time when the big invisible man who lives in the sky did not exist.
2> I’m not saying the big invisible man who lives in the sky created fossils or anything like that. The big invisible man who lives in the sky created evolution.
3> The big bang itself had something to do with the big invisible man who lives in the sky.
4> The theory that simple life forms first and then becomes complex does not hold water – to me anyway. All life is complex. Hurricanes, scrap and airplanes.
5> The theory that there was once nothing and now there is everything sounds like the acceptance of magic which any big invisible man who lives in the sky worth his salt is capable of performing.*
6> Yes, I agree the Bible’s version of events are misguided.
7> I never once said that the big invisible man who lives in the sky watches over us and cares what we do.
8> I agree that the proposal is probably unarguable. I hoping someone will try.
9> No I am not and I resent the implication.
10> I know you are but what am I?

Actually, answer five is more an afterthought.

 

[bpesta22]

I’m new here and will probably repeat previous discussions, for this I make no apology but beg your indulgence.

I have noticed that in my short time of being here that there is a strong anti-big invisible man who lives in the sky attitude, which to me does not suggest scepticism but closed minds.

Tell me why it is so hard to accept that there may be a big invisible man who lives in the sky and to accept that the universe was created from a big bang is easy. Surely, the existence of a big invisible man who lives in the sky is just as believable as something being created from nothing.

It’s easy to accept that life can form on a barren rock but not a big invisible man who lives in the sky creating life.

I propose to this forum that the big invisible man who lives in the sky exists and created life, the universe and everything.

Here’s some pre-prepared answers for you.

1> The big invisible man who lives in the sky always existed and there was never a time when the big invisible man who lives in the sky did not exist.
2> I’m not saying the big invisible man who lives in the sky created fossils or anything like that. The big invisible man who lives in the sky created evolution.
3> The big bang itself had something to do with the big invisible man who lives in the sky.
4> The theory that simple life forms first and then becomes complex does not hold water – to me anyway. All life is complex. Hurricanes, scrap and airplanes.
5> The theory that there was once nothing and now there is everything sounds like the acceptance of magic which any big invisible man who lives in the sky worth his salt is capable of performing.*
6> Yes, I agree the Bible’s version of events are misguided.
7> I never once said that the big invisible man who lives in the sky watches over us and cares what we do.
8> I agree that the proposal is probably unarguable. I hoping someone will try.
9> No I am not and I resent the implication.
10> I know you are but what am I?

Actually, answer five is more an afterthought.

I think you're basically arguing for Deism, which to me is a rational world view.

Believing that something greater than us created the universe, but does not interact with it, is vague enough to avoid the logical problems one gets when ascribing properties to god (e.g., all knowing or all powerful).

The problem with deism-- to me-- is that it's empty as an explanation for anything. What does one get in terms of advanced understanding by saying "god did it"?

I understand that effects seem to need causes. And the universe seems like an effect. But anything capable of creating the universe would surely itself be an effect in need of a cause.

Exempting this god from the cause / effect dilemma is arbitrary and empty. It doesn't resolve the paradox, it just moves it back (unnecessarily) one more step.

If this god can magically just always exist, then why not assume the same for the universe. At least we can see the latter.

 

[Angus McPresley]

And while we at it, why do you suggest that there is a single big invisible guy that did it? Couldn't it have been done by a committee of big invisible guys, who have magically just always existed?

 

[Bruce]

Tell me why it is so hard to accept that there may be a big invisible man who lives in the sky and to accept that the universe was created from a big bang is easy. Surely, the existence of a big invisible man who lives in the sky is just as believable as something being created from nothing.

First of all, I don't "believe" in the big bang theory. As it stands, the big bang theory is a theory that has been put forth to explain the expansion of the universe, which is an observable phenomenon. The theory explains some things about the observable univers, but not others. The theoy is not a religion. It is subject to scrutany, and it is no more bulletproof than any other theory. Scientists will not weep or split into denominations if evidence comes forth that dispels the theory. It's not what we do.

Second, why do you think I MUST believe in a big invisible man? Does it offend you that I do not believe? Are you worried about me? Are you trying to pick a fight on this forum? What is your motive in starting this post?

Third, in answer to your questions, I don't know. I have no problem saying, "I don't know" and leaving it at that when I don't have a means to answer a question, or a means to test any theory I may contrive. You, and many other believers, on the other hand, seem to think that if you don't have an answer to a question, then God must be involved. Furthermore, you seem to think that if I don't have an immediate answer to your questions, you have triumphed and somehow proven that God exists, and thus making me look the fool. Nonsense.

Why do believers always say I have a closed mind if I don't believe the things they do?

If you are here to pick a fight, you won't get one from me. My fighting days with believers are done. If believing in "a big invisible man" as you put it, makes you feel empowered, then all the power to you.

Cheers.

 

[pmurray]

Guys ... have you noted that there is a previous post in this forum with the same title as mine?

 

[Bruce]

Guys ... have you noted that there is a previous post in this forum with the same title as mine?

No. I'm new here.

 

[Zombified]

Did this get copied and pasted from the other thread...? And why is it in the science section instead of the religion section...?

 

[Yahzi]

The point of his post is that god-talk is gibberish; because when you substitute what people mean for the word "god," their statements are rendered absurdly silly.

But the other thread has become somewhat vitrolic on this particular issue.