Blade_Runner wrote:
Do I need to provide the long list of scientific research that has tested those premises and found them quite valid. I'm talking about scientists in all fields from microbiologists to geologists, astronomers and astrophysicists, cosmologists and philosophers of science and scientific theory.
It is simply not possible that matter and energy can come into existence without a transcendent cause.
Where did the transcendent cause come from?
Blade_Runner wrote:
And what about life itself? From a blade of grass to an intelligent being, how is it possible these could come from nothing?
How is it possible these could come from _something_ (such as a "creator" or a "transcendent cause"), about which you can't say where _it_ came from? You are back to square one: a something, and you can't say where it came from.
Blade_Runner wrote:
And, consciousness, the ability to reason and feel and to make decisions and choices, perchance to dream? Where could such gifts come from if not from a transcendent infinitely intelligent creator?
More plausibly, both those gifts _and_ any such "creator" evolved from simpler things which evolved from yet simpler things, and so on until you get to the theoretically simplest thing of all, whatever that is.
I suppose the theoretically simplest thing of all is the nearest thing to absolute nothingness that there is.
There's no reason we have to suppose that "absolute nothingness" is even possible or meaningful.
The theory (mentioned in my earlier post) in which what appears to us as empty space is full of random negative and positive things that usually cancel each other out so fast that normally we never notice them is probably the best guess we'll get about where everything evolved from. (In this theory, there is _no_such_thing_ as absolute nothingness.)
We could instead say that there has _always_ been the same kinds of matter and energy we have today. But then somebody is going to ask where the matter and energy came from.
Blade_Runner wrote:
There is no law of science or nature that can explain good and evil, love or hatred.
Sure there is. Maybe we don't know exactly what it is yet, but we can already posit some guesses about it: For example: "Good" and "love" are defined as that which leads to growth, and "evil" and "hatred" are defined as that which leads to stagnation. Things endure or reproduce, or instead die off, according to simple laws of evolution, such as: some things last longer than others. It is based on random particles that either formed coherent atoms or molecules or didn't, as they were randomly wandering or bouncing around; then some of those molecules eventually joined together to form bigger molecules and, eventually, single-cell life. And so on.
I am one of the objects that evolved (along with my species and one of the cultures that _it_ evolved). I love a few other people and care about them; moreover, I try to be a good citizen and ethical person. All this is part of our survival mechanisms but it's also "good" in other senses of the word. It happens whether we have religious people preaching at us or not; and it happens whether there is a god or not. When you try to introduce god or God into the discussion (as an earlier cause) you are not explaining anything, but instead you are just adding something less explicable and less understandable than what was there before.
Blade_Runner wrote:
No such laws can explain the purpose or meaning of life. Without a transcendent creator, a law giver, we are then just time plus matter plus chance, chemistry and physics in motion, with no purpose or reason for our existence.
Meaning and purpose have to be defined by a transcendent cause. When a belief in God becomes difficult, the tendency is to turn away from Him, but to what? A naturalist will never find an answer nor can he even justify the question.
If there is evil, then you must assume there is good. If you assume good then you must assume moral law. If you assume moral law then you must assume a moral law giver. If there is no moral law giver, there is no moral law, if there is no moral law, there is no good, if there is no good, there is no evil and the question evaporates.
The question, who created God, or from whence did God come, has no basis upon which to even ask, it has no alternative explanation that can account for the idea that all that exists in the relative material universe came from nothing.
br No such laws can explain the purpose or meanin... (
show quote)