Replies

"I couldn't tell you whether those extraterrestrials existed or not. But, now, if you also claimed that these extraterrestrials created the universe and the human race and that they expected us to behave in a certain manner, and then you produced a book outlining their moral code, and you asked everyone to follow this code and believe in these beings or else risk eternal damnation after death... well, then I might think you're alittle crazy. ;-)"

A little crazy? Why? How do you have any idea what entities that (may have) created the universe are like? How do you know what their moral code would or would not be?

That's why it seems to me much more appropriate to remain "without knowledge." It's pretty arrogant to claim that you know, for a fact, that there isn't a Creator or Creators, who have rules.

It's one thing to emphatically state that overwhelming scientific evidence argues against certain aspects of various religions (i.e., the Flood, with Noah and his Ark). But to argue that some entity didn't "light off" the Big Bang, and isn't still around watching, seems pretty reckless. Where's the evidence? (And without the evidence, assertions of "truth" are really just religion.)

OK, Mark, so go ahead and even try to define "God" for me. What is your interpretation? Recently, I had the same discussion with another agnostic, and he pointed out that, within the rules of logic, "lack of evidence" does not prove that something doesn't exist. But he could never provide me with a definition of "God". So, the agnostic's entire argument seems to be: There may be something that exists, but we cannot prove whether it does or not. And, yes, I agree with that statement (who wouldn't agree?). But, once someone defines that something, sound reason may indicate that it cannot possibly exist.

If the word "God" were used as a metaphor for something else, then the atheist probably would have little to no argument. For example, "God" could be interpreted simply as a concept, and one might argue that concepts exist.

But, instead, "God" is defined by various religions in the following terms: A supernatural being who created the world, who cares about mankind here on Earth, and who possesses many of the same qualities as mere humans, such as emotions and a moral code.

If something were "supernatural" (i.e. outside everything that exists in the universe(s)), it couldn't possibly share the same qualities with humans. It would need to be human in order to share those qualities.

What I'm saying is not arrogant - it's just reasonable. Arrogance is a human believing the human race is so important in all the universe that there must've been a supernatural being just like us who created everything just for us.