Question of the Day

[MarcusOfLycia]

You never answered my question.

[waynepii]

You never answered my question.

I did answer the question but the answer was probably in another thread - sorry. I am open to any hypothesis of the source of everything provided it is supported by credible evidence. I find a hypothesis requiring a preexisting supernatural being to be less likely than others that don't require a supernatural being. Not because I'm adverse to the concept of a god, but because a god would be a tremendously complex entity - far more complex than the rest of the universe combined. I'm an Occam's razor type of guy - the more complex the solution, the less likely I find it. Further, the evidence for the existence of the supernatural is either in the writings and teachings of other people or are of the form of "believe and you'll see the evidence" - IMO this is putting the cart before the horse, you look at the evidence first and then form your beliefs based upon the evidence.

[MarcusOfLycia]

That's closer to what I was looking for. However, how are you drawing the assumptions that you are in regard to the Supernatural creator of the universe? Why does He need to be more complex than the rest of the universe combined? What necessitates this? It would seem the only true way to get information about someone or something 'outside' of the universe itself would be to have that someone or something communicate it.

The 'evidence for the existence of the supernatural' should be self-evident in some ways; for instance, the fact that something exists rather than nothing (and thus, requires some sort of explanation). It was never really an issue before for philosophers and scientists to assume a first cause. With discoveries allowing us to understand that the universe did have a beginning, we now have more concrete evidence of this. Many Christians come to God not because of people saying 'believe and you'll see' but because they saw evidence, made a decision, and embraced a worldview based on it. I'd wager most of the early Christians who put their lives on the lines for it did just that.

Another topic perhaps, but I would question the assertion you make as to whether you are 'not averse to the concept of god'. There's never truly neutral ground in these matters; I always grow wary when people suggest they are somehow in the mystical 'neutral ground'. I'm not saying you don't think you're neutral... just that everyone has presuppositions that alter any chance of actual neutrality.