Life is Material, not Supernatural: We Are Material, Natural Beings
Sunday July 27, 2008
Most religions say that life is much more than the flesh and matter we see around us. In addition, there is supposed to be some sort of spiritual or supernatural realm behind it all and that our "true selves" is spiritual, not material. All evidence, though, points to life being a purely natural phenomenon. All evidence indicates that who we really are — our selves — is material and dependent upon the workings of the brain. If this is so, religious and theistic doctrines are wrong.
Read Article: Life is Material, not Supernatural: We Are Material, Natural Beings
Comments
“All evidence, though, points to life being a purely natural phenomenon.”
There is in fact great evidence for God. Science clearly shows that the universe had a beginning. So it had to come from somewhere, meaning it must have been created. And therefor there must be a Creator.
Anyone who honestly seeks the truth will find this to be true.
If you are such a person, please read Mere Christianity and Surprised by Joy by CS Lewis or The Case For A Creator, The Case For Christ and The Case for Faith by .
“Beginning” implies a “time before,” which is impossible.
Even if there was a beginning, that doesn’t logically entail that it was created.
Even if it was “created,” that doesn’t logically entail the existence of your god.
Science doesn’t at all”clearly show there was a beginning.”The idea of the universe having a so-called beginning is mere speculation.Philosophically, there is no true evidence against the “universe” having actually existed in an eternal sense.If not so, then the question simply becomes “If the Universe was in fact created by God, then who or what created God?”If the theist says “God had no beginning,”then there is, of course, no reason to assert that the “universe,” depending on how it’s defined, had no beginning either.
“Anyone who honestly seeks the truth” Here again you deal with semantics. ‘Truth’ is tossed around by a lot of religious groups. They never define what is ‘truth’, except that they know what it is and everyone else doesn’t. One might as well say, “Anyone honestly seeking unicorns will find them.” It is just as illogical
“Science clearly shows that the universe had a beginning.”
false. ’some’ scientists may characterize the alleged ‘big bang’ as the beginning of the universe but the big bang is not even a scientific fact and much less the beginning of the universe!
my logic tells me that ’something’ always existed. while some people disagree, i think that ‘absolutely nothing’…no dust, no radiation, no space, no potential existence of any kind could generate ’something’. in other words, something cannot arise from nothing. if so, then, while there may be other options, which is more probably eternal…some creator god (or gods) or the universe?
we know that the physical universe exists, without doubt…we are a part of it. there is doubt whether a god (or gods) exist or have ever existed. why? because there is no emperical evidence for it. therefore, since ’something’ has always, probably, existed and the universe definitely exists, it has a greater PROBABILITY of being eternal than something that may or may not exist.
“Anyone who honestly seeks the truth will find this to be true.”
this is a ludicrous, arrogant statement because none of us, not one, knows what the truth is in regard to the existence of god or the eternal nature of the universe. each individual has to make up one’s own mind with whatever intellectual gift that one has with whatever one can figure out from the richness of human philosophical and religious writings.
the problem is that the default position for most people is the one that they are raised with. like language, most people utilize and believe whatever religion that they are raised with.
my opinion is, and i could be wrong, that until a person has rejected his native religion or philosophy and made a reasonable search of the existing religions and philosophies, that person is not in the running for figuring anything out and that these themes are best left with the seekers who do not fear to leave the familiar trappings of tradition and culture behind. this is not as easy as it may sound, but is absolutely necessary for a personal philosophical journey.
Brad, C.S. Lewis? You have to be joking. His arguments are weak at best. Austin has a whole series on Lewis. Read it.
Kind of late to the discussion, but here we go.
What we know of the universe and the big bang isn’t necessesarily the true beginning. The Big Crunch theory (is it a theory, or hypothesis?) states that eventually, cosmic expansion will reverse, smooshing everything into a singularity. Once that happens, who’s to say there won;t be another big bang, starting the process all over again? And if that’s true, there is no possible way to know how many times the cycle has been repeated, or how mnay times it will continue to do so.
Austin is correct, as usual. I’ve been reading his posts for quite some time now. Usually concise, clear and logical. Hats off, Austin.
The Big Crunch theory has gone the way of the dodo, for the time being. The latest evidence is that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing. The galaxies will continue to move away from each other. Then the stars will move away from each other within the galaxies. Then the stars will all die out. Then the black holes will evaporate. So much for Craig’s “heat death” of the universe.