These type of philosophical arguments are apparently considered “sophisticated” and tend to be postulated by those who are “enlightened” or have acquired an impressive “intellectual” ability to understand these matters. Apparently this acquired intellect surpasses those of us who are still apparently archaic in our approach in questioning whether there is a supernatural force which has designed the universe in a purposeful manner.
My approach is to let these philosophers argue themselves in circles while I consider the evidence for and against the accuracy of scripture and then compare that with religious history and holy books from other religions. Simple, perhaps, but I recognize that truth does exist and there can only be one “right” answer as to how we arrived at where we are today. Either there is a designer of the cosmos or there is not. We cannot know who or what the designer is by considering scientific arguments so we must consider historical accounts and discern which, if any, religious avenues lead down the correct path to who or what designed our universe.
I’ve heard some people say they have no want to search for evidence for something they feel is a faith driven belief. Well, they are missing out on a fascinating journey.
From the link:
Special pleading that the universe is essentially different from its constituents, and (by nature of its unique status as all that there is to the physical world) that it could not have either (1) just existed forever, nor (2) come spontaneously into existence all by itself, is groundless. The only sensible response such skepticism is “Why not?” It’s certainly true that we don’t yet know whether the universe is eternal or whether it had a beginning, and we certainly don’t understand the details of its origin. But there is absolutely no obstacle to our eventually figuring those things out, given what we already understand about physics. General relativity asserts that spacetime itself is dynamical; it can change with time, and potentially even be created from nothing, in a way that is fundamentally different from the Newtonian conception (much less the Aristotelian). And quantum mechanics describes the universe in terms of a wavefunction that assigns amplitudes to any of an infinite number of possibilities, including — crucially — spontaneous transitions, unforced by any cause. We don’t yet know how to describe the origin of the universe in purely physical terms, but someday we will — physicists are working on the problem every day. [my emphasis]“The only sensible response to such skepticism is “Why not?””
Atheists always attest to their strong reasoning skills, but is it truly reasonable to believe that something originated from nothing?
Personally, I think it’s all quite simple. Either someone created something out of nothing, or no one created something out of nothing. What’s that song? “Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could“. To attain something from nothing is simply not a reasonable deduction.
I think for many non-believers, their non-belief stems from their inability to deal with a God who allows pain and suffering. The other reason is due to what the author of the post linked above states:
And once you start attributing to God the possibility of being interested in some way about the world and the people in it, you open the door to all of the nonsensical rules and regulations governing real human behavior that tend to accompany any particular manifestation of religious belief, from criminalizing abortion to hiding women’s faces to closing down the liquor stores on Sunday.It’s difficult for some to think about having to answer to their creator. Live and let live is their motto and for some reason they believe that living a godly life will cramp their style. I’ve found that to be a false assumption. I lived ~my way~ long enough to know that following His way is far more rewarding.
But, the bottom line for me is this... I have no problem with the Dawkins and Harris’ of the world proselytizing in the public square. But, their skepticism is based on faith, not deductive reasoning. We should not have to subject our students to only one view of origins in the science classroom. ID is a viable inference and should be acknowledged as such. I’m convinced the only reason ID is not accepted is due to unwarranted fear of separation of church and state issues.
So, yeah, I’ll remain quite content in my “unsophisticated” world, rather than becoming so “enlightened” that my ability to reason is no longer intact.