Originally posted by PenguinIt sounds to me like you are saying that there is no evidence that the physical universe behaves as current scientific theories suggest. Is that right?
Good point. However, you are suspending judgment regarding how nature might have behaved, in contradiction to how nature is behaving now. Regardless of that future revelation of nature's unknown past, compared to current understanding that behavior is supernatural. It assumes a suspension of the laws of physics (or, worse, that what were laws before are laws ...[text shortened]... an inbuilt curiosity and desire in mankind for control of his environment.
--- Penguin
Excuse my vague verbosity. I was attempting to say that nothing within our current understanding of physics, cosmology (or any other discipline, for that matter) lends itself to the suggestion that the known laws have not existed since inception. Moreover, nothing within the scope of our current understanding provides a gap big enough for the suggestion that nature behaved one way in the past (in creating itself) than it does today (perpetuating its existence).
But those language are all artificial, invented by man. Religion is also artificial, invented by man. God is an artifical concept, invented by man.
Eh! Man, in every possible configuration, has a language and you claim that language is anything but innate? Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?
You have suggested that the existance through the ages of a religious concept in mankind implies some fundamental truth of religion.
Nay. I contend that religious concept points to an innate and universal God concept.
Originally posted by rwingettAbsolute rubbish. Your 'god concept' may have been drubbed into your thick skull when you were very young, but you were NOT born with it.
Absolute rubbish. Your 'god concept' may have been drubbed into your thick skull when you were very young, but you were NOT born with it.
There are, and have been, a plethora of religions throughout human history, but they all evolved from man's ignorance in relation to the larger universe. The very first human ancestors were necessarily atheists*. But ...[text shortened]... at all.
*implicit atheists. Which is to say that they had no conception of god at all.
Perhaps the thickness of your skull is keeping you from smelling what the Rock is cooking. As stated, there wasn't even a mention of God in my adolescent household (except for the incidental 'goddamn' or etc.), and yet Creator-hungry I was.
The very first human ancestors were necessarily atheists*.
Thus spoke Zarathrusta. You wouldn't have anything resembling evidence, I don't suppose? Recorded history (as opposed to conjecture, hypothesis or wishful thinking) has taught us just the opposite. Namely, that man has always had a God concept. Ever since.
Originally posted by rwingettThanks, I'll leave it.
I have little inclination to go through the laborious task of gathering evidence on your behalf, so I am stating my assertion as an a priori truth. You can take it or leave it.
(And people think religious folk are the only ones who have faith!)
I would point out, though, that scientists harbor a far greater percentage of atheists that the population at large. This strengthens my claim (though it does not prove it). People are able to rise above their social conditioning.
Only about 45% of scientists do not believe in God -- and that figure hasn't changed in 80 years:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html
Given the massive social upheavals over the same period, your "rising above social conditioning" argument is weakened.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI believe that most children (and adults) have a strong attraction to the supernatural. (I was magic hungry and so is the current generation of children (Harry Potter, Starwars etc) The vast majority of best selling childrens books top grossing movies etc are either science fiction or fantasy. One of the most attractive features of magic and the supernatural is low input / large output (the same attraction to guns /bows and arrows /computer games etc). Even Babys are attracted to objects that make the biggest sound with the minimal effort.
Perhaps the thickness of your skull is keeping you from smelling what the Rock is cooking. As stated, there wasn't even a mention of God in my adolescent household (except for the incidental 'goddamn' or etc.), and yet Creator-hungry I was.
Prayer and belief in God has a similar attraction (gain for minimal effort). You yourself have constantly praised Christianity precisely because you believe no work is required.
I was attempting to say that nothing within our current understanding of physics, cosmology (or any other discipline, for that matter) lends itself to the suggestion that the known laws have not existed since inception. Moreover, nothing within the scope of our current understanding provides a gap big enough for the suggestion that nature behaved one way in the past (in creating itself) than it does today (perpetuating its existence).
I'm not sure what the current theories are concerning the first few moments after the begininning of the expansion. Certainly physics at a singularity may well behave differently than in the rest of the universe, just like the physics at the subatomic level is a bit 'wierd' (technical term). However, I don't think lack of knowledge of the why's and how's of that period gives any more credance to Christianity above any other religion (remember the title of this thread) or even to religion in general. Are you a Young Earth Creationist? If so then you have to posit changes in physical laws far more recently and in far less extreme conditions. If not then I apologise for the insinuation.
Eh! Man, in every possible configuration, has a language and you claim that language is anything but innate? Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?
Ok, the capacity for language may have evolved and now be 'inate' and maybe a capacity for belief in the supernatural may also be 'inate'. I'll concede that possibility. However, as I have said before, an inate predisposition to believe in the supernatural does not imply that the supernatural actually exists. And it gives no support whatsoever to any one religion over any other (remember the topic of the thread).
Nay. I contend that religious concept points to an innate and universal God concept.
I have conceded that there may be an inate tendancy towards believe in the supernatural. That may be manifested in various ways including belief in a god or gods. However, this does no imply an inate 'god' concept. And again, even if it did, that does not imply that that a god or gods actually exist.
--- Penguin.
As stated, there wasn't even a mention of God in my adolescent household (except for the incidental 'goddamn' or etc.), and yet Creator-hungry I was.
We do not mention Father Christmas (Santa Clause) in our household. Yet our children are still aware of the concept.
Was there no mention of religion in your primary school days? Was Christmas never celebrated in you house or anywhere else that you experienced? Did you have no telivision or radio during the Christmas / Easter period?
--- Penguin.