NeedToUseYou
Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
|
General Reply:
I'm personally an agnostic. I used to think I was an atheist, until I realized it was just as unprovable a position to flatly state their is no god as to state their definitely is a god. Many will state their own observations as to why there can't be a god. Can't is as wrong as Must be in my view. Both are extreme and completely unsupportable.
I hope their is a god, but can't personally come to believe it. That doesn't mean others are stupid for believing in "God". Almost any question can be theorized why god is letting something happen, and you could formulate a valid good reason if you take limits away based on our very very limited understanding of anything.
In fact it is science itself that makes me think a God like creature is possible. I could imagine in a thousand years(if we make it that long), being able to create whole planets from nothing, I could imagine populating that planet with engineered life. Hell, I could even imagine eventually having the ability, to create a heaven like utopia by scanning someones brain at death and storing it in some computer like structure were it could continue on forever. So, if a human mistakes those kind of acts for omnipotent power then that is a very small mistake. I'm sure they are possible to achieve. Even the whole God not interacting thing is quite reasonable what better way to learn about our past than to create a new man created in our image, and follow his progress and guide him at pivotal points along the way. Or I could imagine us being so advanced and wandering along some distant planet and laying the seeds of a belief in god to manipulate the populace for a time. Either way.
But the argument always revolves around the details of omnipotent. I am omnipotent to a roach as far as the roach is concerned. Am I literally, no, but it's a fair enough mistake. If it is a mistake.
The broad strokes are pretty well unprovable at present, the minor details are provable but evolution doesn't disprove the existance of "God". It only contradicts the "BIBLE" which is not the concept of god, just the stories about his interactions. The Big bang disproves nothing in relation to the concept of God. All of physics don't relate to the God concept.
I'm unable to think of anything we've discovered that in anyway, detracts from the possiblity of god. The bible maybe but not the concept of god itself. Unless one believes we actually have an understanding of the universe enough to disprove it, and that is supreme arrogance in my view.
Formula for God:
Able to terraform planet. (Well, Nasa already has plans for this on mars)
Able to read minds.(requires ability to understand and translate the human brains communication paths, undoubtedly this is crackable)
Able to create a heaven like environment after death.(Matrix concept anyone)
Able to cause severe weather changes.(US is working on this in alaska)
Able to fly.(able to in crafts, surely some device will be made to do this with a 1000 years)
Able to locate people. (getting better all the time)
Able to engineer life.(working on this one)
Able to destroy ancient cities at will(check, nuclear works for me)
Able to heal the sick(advancing all the time in this area, undoubtedly advances will continue)
Ability to raise the recently dead(could be done by either faking it, or would require more advanced methods in science).
I really don't see anything in that list I have any doubt we will be able to do in a 1000 years probably much sooner than that. So, gods we may become, and gods may have visited also in a completely real world since.
And even in the literal view of god as omnipotent, what evidence is there he/she doesn't exist. None for or against. There are still more holes left open in scientific understanding than have been filled.
|
RE: The Atheist Delusion"The Atheist Delusion" - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread