0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
....it seems you are saying that the only scientific response to the concept of "God" is that of the agnostic.
The problem with god is that every definition turns out to be contradictory to observation
Possibly the most damaging kind is the delusion that one is inherently incapable of making a simple decision. Agnostics are to be pitied, not hated.
Self-delusion is about inventing the unnecessary - quite the opposite of reductionism.
Presumably you have scientific proof for your belief, otherwise, your "simple decision" is just a matter of personal preference, or self deception.
Why would you pity someone who does not need to protect himself/herself with false certainties of any kind?
An agnostic, on the other hand, logically recognizes the folly of committing to any conclusive determination of fact arrived at without having all the needed data.
Every definition of a functional god is either ridiculous or immediately disprovable.
I'm a scientist: I'm paid not to believe anything. I fly around the country to work with ionising radiation and sick animals: belief can be fatal - just read the accident reports.
How much data do you need?
That would be a valid argument if you had studied every definition there has ever been. Perhaps you have? Otherwise it is just an opinion based on partial evidence.
It sounds as though your work is laudable and of great value, but introducing it into this discussion suggests a disappointing lack of relevant arguments. It's a bit like pulling rank, I feel sure you can do better than that.
Nothing but opinion. There's nothing to suggest that a creator (or God) should have to continue on within the creation as a functional element any more than one should expect a potter to continue on within the pot as a functional element.
In view of the very real possibility that the creator may not actually be (or ever have been) within or even observably connected to the creation, even having all the data about the universe may not be sufficient to enable any questioner to arrive at a conclusive determination of fact.
A creator unconnected with its creation? Something of an oxymoron, surely!
If anyone had come up with a valid definition of a god