Well I feel sheepish.
And I would say you could "convert" to science if you formerly held a contrary position, like acceptance of faith. It's kind of just semantics though.
Anyone who appears on Fox News is an idiot. Period. I love Dawkins, but I can't stand that he appears on Fox. The proper response to that vile network is to ignore them at all times. They are barbarians and should be treated as such.
...I don't want to be a kick in the nuts, but I think we should get back on topic...
click here for my art!~!
(ღ˘⌣˘ღ) ♫･*:.｡. .｡.:*･
Wo Hops in Chinatown makes the best Beef Chow Fan on Eris' green earth and if you disagree you are objectively wrong.
On topic, if there's no God, what is the final word on the very fact anything exists rather than nothing?
Also, the KNOWN reality could just be a very small portion of an even greater reality (think the ending of Men In Black). While it would be foolish to even pretend to know or believe in any specific idea about this greater truth, would it not be equally foolhardly to proclaim with any certainty that there is NOTHING beyond our own universe that may be affecting it in ways we may one day come to know or percieve?
According to the Law of Conservation of Matter, matter cannot be created or destroyed. So how is there anything to begin with?
And there could be aliens on other planets. And there could be Godzilla in the mariana trench. And there could be a parallel universe where, right now, I am having sex with Scarlett Johansson, Christina Hendricks, and Kim Kardashian. and And everything you think you know could actually be wrong and you are the victim of the most organized and massive conspiracy ever as literally every single person you have ever met has been lying to you and part of this conspiracy.Also, the KNOWN reality could just be a very small portion of an even greater reality (think the ending of Men In Black).
There are infinite possibilities and most things are impossible to disprove. This is why skepticism is necessary. You must prove propositions, not disprove them. This is why the onus of proof is always on the theist. They are the one positing a thing, and thus they must prove that thing.
No, it would not. There is something very foolish about saying "There is something affecting us in ways we don't understand! I literally know nothing about what this thing is, or how it is affecting us, or what its effects are, but somehow I know it exists even though I literally cannot name a single quality about it and ergo am completely full of nonsense!"While it would be foolish to even pretend to know or believe in any specific idea about this greater truth, would it not be equally foolhardly to proclaim with any certainty that there is NOTHING beyond our own universe that may be affecting it in ways we may one day come to know or percieve?
That's only a mystery if you assume that matter and energy were created. If you assume a steady state universe (in regards to the amount of matter in it, not the configurations, obviously) then this is not a problem at all. Also, again, it has nothing to do with God since using God to "solve" this "problem" just makes it worse.According to the Law of Conservation of Matter, matter cannot be created or destroyed. So how is there anything to begin with?
For the billionth time, here's why.
The argument from first cause:
Premise 1. All things must have a creator.
Premise 2. The universe exists.
Conclusion 1. The universe has a creator.
Conclusion 2. The creator is God.
Now ignoring the fact that none of the premises suggest, let alone necessitate, that second conclusion, here is why that argument is literally worthless. If we accept the first premise then we run into:
Premise 3. God exists.
Conclusion 3. God has a creator.
Premise 4. God's Creator exists.
Conclusion 4. God's Creator has a creator.
Premise 5. God's Creator's Creator exists.
Premise 6. God's Creator's Creator has a creator.
So on and so forth into infinity. The apparent solution to this is to, of course, say that God is different and has no creator. But then you've modified the argument. Now the initial argument has become this:
Premise 1. Most things have creators.
But by modifying that first premise you now have weakened the argument. It's no longer a logical necessity, now it's merely a inductive argument. Thus the theist must somehow prove that God is uncreated but that the universe requires a creator. If they cannot offer any evidence either way then the logical thing is to resort to occam's razor in which case we assume that the universe is uncreated since that is the simpler explanation.