Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Why the Universe Obviously Has a Creator (and Why Some Atheists Refuse to Even Consider It) [View all]Silent3
(15,152 posts)98. Who is supposing answers here?
Last edited Tue Jan 29, 2013, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)
I simply believe that accepting a concept of God as a Creator is better than accepting nothing at all.
"Better" in what way? More emotionally satisfying to you? If you remain consistent with your opening words "There is no answer" then "better" is stopping there with that admission of ignorance.
That is a value judgment...
"To give is better than to receive" is a value judgment. The existence or lack thereof of a God is not a value judgment, it's a condition of the universe that we all share. Ignorance of the truth of that existence doesn't turn an assertion in the face of that ignorance into a value judgment.
...and until you can demonstrate otherwise...
In other words, even if I don't have evidence, until you prove me wrong, I'm right!
...this radical atheism is no improvement at all...
Apart from the fact that "this radical atheism" of yours is probably a cartoon caricature of atheism, what exactly needs to be "improved" here? A magic "black box" God who is nothing more than "the thing that does all things for which we don't understand how they are done" is not any sort of improvement, unless perhaps your only goal is to dress up human ignorance in a shinier, more impressive-sounding package, and not deeper understanding.
...those who care not at all to present a case to the opposite...
My "case to the opposite" is that I don't know, but neither do you. That you prefer to make up an evidence-free answer does not obligate me to have my own provable answer to replace yours.
If someone brings up what you're calling a "primordial soup" explanation for the origin of life they don't have to prove it to argue that it is plausible. Where plausible explanations exist based on proven principles and known quantities, even if the overall explanation is unproven, this demonstrates that there is no compelling reason to spend much effort exploring the unproven and the unknown as explanations, not until the known, and logical extrapolations of known principles, have been well exhausted and shown to be inadequate.
Suppose a bank has been robbed and the perpetrator is unknown. Hypothetically at least, the crime could have been committed by a werewolf or a zombie. There had better be good reason, however, to eliminate human suspects before you go wasting your time investigating werewolves and zombies. If the crime remains unsolved, the fact that it hasn't been solved, in and of itself, does very little to improve the odds that werewolves or zombies were to blame.
We may not know everything there is to know about how life works and where it came from, but using known principles of physics and chemistry and biology has increased our understanding of life far more than saying "God did it!" ever has. Given the track record of the scientific approach, I'd say the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why it's better to say "God did it!" rather than to simply admit that our knowledge is limited, that we don't have all of the answers, but to stick to science as the best hope for increasing our knowledge.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
110 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Why the Universe Obviously Has a Creator (and Why Some Atheists Refuse to Even Consider It) [View all]
ellisonz
Mar 2012
OP
"Anyone want to count the fallacies and factual errors?" I'd rather count fire ants, but sure.
saras
Mar 2012
#15
Well, if it's old and a "philosophy of the east," it must be unquestionably true.
laconicsax
Mar 2012
#34
I suggest that you don't understand the basics because you say terrifically ignorant things.
laconicsax
Mar 2012
#58
Actually there is a good argument that it is highly probable that we are part
Warren Stupidity
Mar 2012
#74
I like that one. Odds of anything being exactly the way it is are astronomical.
DirkGently
Mar 2012
#9
Whatever assumptions he used, the universe is in no way fine-tuned for life.
laconicsax
Mar 2012
#23
"God" is a piss-poor answer because it replaces one unknown with another and stops further inquiry.
laconicsax
Mar 2012
#69
So you expect an "answer" to the question of creation to be found by science? n/t
ellisonz
Mar 2012
#77
Yes, you do realize that everything we know about the physical world...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
#79
Your clumsy anology is rather inaccurate, and God isn't an answer, but a roadblock to the answer...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
#78
An omnipotent god would create all possible simultations within all possible universes
FarCenter
Mar 2012
#75