This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← It's like he was reading my mind

Moosebite's Avatar Jump to comment 255 by Moosebite

Tony123, I didn't suggest that the idea of the creator was absurd. (As Steve has said to exist in timelessness and spacelessness means that one cannot interact with our universe in space-time. A creator would have to adopt an existence in space time before being able to interact with it. But this is neither here nor there). I was merely saying that your theory about how the universe was created was absurd.

Matter can't exist in all states at once, so a 'creator' can't create them all at once. It may be that he pops in at every infinitesimal moment to affect the change that all matter goes through. Seems ridiculous, though, for a few reasons. Firstly because that means he's responsible for everything that happens, including what we do and think and feel etc. And also because, like I said before (credit to Steve) he can't think and process and have consciousness outside of space-time. Lastly, it's a very convoluted idea of a being that we probably will never have a way of comprehending, so whether or not it exists is irrelevant to us in our daily lives other than when we stop and think "I wonder if a creator exists".

Therefore the Creator, being immaterial, is not affected by time.

Uhhh... How the cluck can it interact with our world if it is "immaterial"???

As I said on an earlier comment, my faith is a delicate thing, always on the verge of being lost. It needs to be constantly bolstered by reason, constantly fed by science. If I can be reasonably sure that it is more likely than not that a spaceless and timeless Creator of the universe does exist, then my faith will live on. If, on the other hand, there is strong evidence that there is no Creator, my faith will wither. So far I have seen nothing to convince me of this.

That, right there, is a contradiction. On one hand you are saying your faith must be "bolstered" by reason and "fed" by science. But then you go on to say that as long as science doesn't disprove your beliefs you will still hold them. So what I'm getting from you is that you'll believe anything that hasn't been disproved. Or is it just selective things? I completely agree with Jim Callum here; it is quite clear that you decided what you believe before you looked at the evidence and then as long as the evidence leaves room for you to believe something you will continue to believe it. Otherwise it's tantamount to saying "science has not disproved that a being outside of our space-time wants me to kill as many people as I can, so I believe it". Not the same belief, but the same method.

Your theory is, "I can conceive of it, and it hasn't been disproved, therefore it is true".

It's a terrible theory. One of the smarter god hypotheses I've heard, but still a rational 'car crash'.

So, moving on from that,

Again, I have discovered nothing in Church teaching which can be experimentally contradicted by science. For example, the central tenet of the Church - the Resurrection of Christ - has been recorded as a historical fact, just as diligently as all facts are recorded in history

First of all, what church is that?!? And secondly, how diligently is that exactly? You mean records written in the 400 years that followed the alleged event? The destruction of a number of those records is to be considered diligent? Is that how "diligently" we record history these days?

I'm guessing that in another two thousand years time, when somebody asks "why did people 4000 years ago say that all this supernatural stuff happened and there were magic people and people could rise from the dead, but people 2000 years ago say that none of this stuff happened in their time?" the answer will be "because they had computers 2000 years ago that kept perfect records".

and yet bodily resurrection has not been scientifically disproved.

In a case like this, I think it's pretty safe to say that it can't be disproved because it will never happen. Doesn't mean it can't. But it wont. And it probably never did. Not without science giving a massive helping hand.

Anyway I'm willing to ignore all of that for now. I just want you to answer this question:

How do you act differently in believing that there is a creator, and how do you know to act in these ways?

Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:17:22 UTC | #532990