God can exist
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
True, but even atheists cannot make the claim "There is no God" as fact. It is their interpretation, a belief somewhat, or lack of belief, but they cannot say as fact that there is no God. Hopefully you understand what I am saying.
Of course God can exist. In the grand scheme of things, our insignificant selves harbor minimal knowledge regarding the universe, along with the contents within. Science has no answer to the universe's origins - merely disorganized, voluminous amounts of theories, many in contradiction to one another. Saying God is an impossibility is the epitome of ignorance. The realm of our computational comprehension is negligible. We could fill libraries with the information we don't know about the very universe we dwell in, yet we presume to understand that which lies beyond it? Give me a break. When all the theories are broken down, and we carefully analyze the origins, nothing other than a Creator stands to reason.
God, as an entity which is the Creator of the Universe, can exist, even if we evolved and if the laws of nature govern us.
Keep in mind, I am not talking about the Christian God, or Muslim God, or a specific God; I am speaking only of an entity which may have created our universe. That entity may not even govern it nor oversee it, but such an entity could have created it, and there is no reason why that entity would be an impossiblity.
Thus, if Humanity figures out how to create mini-universes, we become God.
[/QUOTE]
Kadark I somewhat agree, but I view Science as more of a way to analyze and comprehend the HERE AND NOW, and how things may work, but not why they work nor their origins, nor the ultimate "how they work", as in, how they exist. Their true origins.
Correct.
However, what I fail to see is the need for any 'creator'.
Ockham's always rules.
Correct.
However, what I fail to see is the need for any 'creator'.
Ockham's always rules.
Didn't Ockham have an exception to his rules?
Not at all. I find the greatest contradiction is dismissing the argument of a Creator, all the while giving no solution of your own.
Correct.
However, what I fail to see is the need for any 'creator'.
Ockham's always rules.
If there is a Creator, the need would be the mere fact that he created us! Now, if he (assuming He exists) does not govern his creation (who's to say we aren't some experiment, our universe, under close examination by a being in a labcoat?), there would be no need of worship, true.
Hmmm... attempt number 2..
Norsefire, read the book.
If he needs a book to answer your questions, how do you expect me to word it here?
I need not give a solution because I don't see the role you're giving this creator.
No role, ergo no need.
The role of the Creator, intuitively, is creating.
Realize that if there is a Creator, such a Creator would not be bound by our laws, having created them.
Therefore, while highly unlikely some things may seem, they are not impossible, and neither side has any sort of evidence to back up their claims. Therefore, atheists cannot pass as fact "There is no God"
Didn't Ockham have an exception to his rules?
Nope; it's fairly straightforward.
The contemporary version is well known, and spouted throughout various offices: Keep It Simple Stupid.
Then, essentially, what you're saying is that those who attempt to seek answers are idiots.
Threatened theists. A world without their gods. Unimaginable. But, that's really what's at stake.