America's #1 Balance Bike Destination

America's #1 Balance Bike Destination
America's #1 Balance Bike Destination

15 August 2008

Fwd: How much more proof is required..

3-Year-Old Tried To Save Self From Heat
We're on our own people. Praying is the same as playing the lottery, except with the lottery, some people actually win, and losers aren't three year old babies roasted alive inside of cars where mommy forgot about them in the back seat.   

13 comments:

rokkafellah said...

It's a very sad story and it's too bad that this child died...
But, what does this have to do with proof there is no god?

Metin said...

As Deepak Chopra points out, there are three philosophical arguments to support the idea of God.

The first is the fact that we think about God means there must be a God because otherwise our nervous system wouldn't be able to conceive a God.

In other words, we would not be able to create that which does not exist.

The second is that in a universe of endless causes there has to be a first cause, which is a-causal.

And the third is that where there is design, there must be a designer.

But, if you define God, you limit God.

After all, God has managed the amazing feat of being worshiped and invisible at the same time.

And yet he exists.

rokkafellah said...

But, Metin just as we see invisible things happening in the world that don't have phsical or 'seeable' form. (things like pain, happiness, sadness, hunger)We can see God's creation and his power too.
Just b/c we don't see a physical being called 'God' doesn't that He is not there.

Metin said...

Rocka: I didn't think I disagreed with you. I thought I was supporting the idea that God exists. Hmmm...

rokkafellah said...

I'm not disagreeing with you either maybe I shouldn't have said 'but, Metin'..... anyway, I saw your blog and it's very interesting!

Finduk O. said...

To counteact Deepak Chopra's 3 arguments to support the idea of God:

1- As an agnostic, the fact that we think about how there may or may not be a God or Gods, in plural, and we sit dumbstruck at the people who think believing in it/them means it exists, and that there are a whole other set of people that believe no gods exist, means that something more than solely belief, namely scientific evidence, is needed to support either side. The fact that our nervous system can conceive that there exists these two sets of polar opposites in belief means that both beliefs coexist. There must be actual scientific knowledge that goes beyond either set of beliefs.

2- laws of physics are actually scientifically proven, unlike the claim that there must be a first, a-causal cause. Who can scientifically prove that there "must" be an initial a-causal cause? Physics tells us that energy is neither created or destroyed and that it just changes forms. This is scientifically proven. If energy is never created, and this is scientifically proven, how can anyone say "there has to be a first cause" without giving scientific evidence to back up such a statement? If nothing else, science has proven the opposite of this 2nd argument.

3- If we mentally recognize a pattern in something and call it a design, then we ourselves are the designers because we ourselves give meaning to what we observe. Think about optical illusions and how one person will see a bunch of dots and think it's an image of a dog, and another will see no dog and something completely different. The fact that there are people with various religious beliefs is a prime example of how the individual is the one who is designating something as a great design, and is therefore himself/herself the designer.

If you believe in God, you probably believe that the 3-year old who was stuck in the truck was a design or creation of God. The truck itself was a creation of man, and yet you may believe it was ultimately a creation of God, or that because it was a creation of man, it caused the death of a child.

But the mother is a creation of God as well as the Texas summer heat, for those who believe in God. If all of these things were created by God, then it means in the design of these three things (the boy, the mother, the car) is a grand design of murdering your offspring by dry roasting.

If such events are not a part of the design by the designer God, if such events are random occurrences caused by dumb-luck or without cause whatsoever, then how can such an event be claimed to not have a design behind it, when the argument that God exists says that everything does have a design and therefore a designer?

Everything is either one of two things:
1- a series of random occurrences that follow the nature and laws of physics, for which we have scientific proof
2- a grand design brought about by a grand designer who exists with no explanation or evidence,and who has knowingly or consciously created everything, including our nervous systems so we can belief in him/her/them.

I think maybe that's what Murat was talking about with the death of this child. Oftentimes when something tragic like this happens, the existence of a god who allows for such senseless destruction is questioned.

Metin said...

"Oftentimes when something tragic like this happens, the existence of a god who allows for such senseless destruction is questioned."

I don't think so. But that's a matter of opinion. MINE!

But when I read comments as lengthy as yours that give me a headache, I too question the existence of "G"od!

Murat Altinbasak said...

Hey it was "G-d's will", right?
Well if so, fuck it, I want no part of such a 'design'.
The possibility exists that God doesn't like us, that God hates us, and that we persist and survive somehow in spite of his best efforts to annihilate us.

Metin said...

I don't think it was anyone's will.

The options have been made available for us good. bad, or ugly.

And if we choose to screw it up, then we can't blame God for giving us the choice.

Don't blame the video game designer for not playing the game properly and never getting to level 2.

Ertan said...

for once metin I agree with you.

Also without tragedy people wont learn valuable lessons in life.

good and bad has to exist so everything is balanced.

zencycle said...

Blogger Metin said...
"The first is the fact that we think about God means there must be a God because otherwise our nervous system wouldn't be able to conceive a God."

We have also conceived the flying spaghetti monster and the invisible pink unicorn. Do they exist? We have conceived superman, batman, and, and captain america. Do they exist? God is a figment of our imaginations. It may exist in the imagination of those who conceive it, But there are no earthly manifestations that support it.

"The second is that in a universe of endless causes there has to be a first cause, which is a-causal. "

Says who? Where is it decreed that the universe as we know it has to have a first cause? This is not a given that stands up to logical scrutiny, rather a posit for the point of discussion.

"And the third is that where there is design, there must be a designer."

Snowflakes are created as function of the laws of physics. Indeed, every manifestation of natural 'design' you can suggest can be explained and supported by the interactions of the laws of our universe.

True, there are certain phenomena which science has not yet provided answers which can withstand the rigors of the scientific method - e.g. Dark Matter - Yet, simply that science has not provided us with that information does not mean they will not, and certainly does not necessitate the 'god of the gaps'.

V. said...

First of all, I really enjoy reading all these discussion on this blog. If you guys don't mind, I would like to share my opinion on the matter, but I am really not trying to convince anyone or anything of that sort.
There are two types of will according to the Islamic principles; the first one is the absolute will of God (that we have no influence over) and the so-called partial will which is our own will power. Example of the absolute will would be our inability to choose our gender at birth, whereas an example of partial will includes tons of aspects of our lives that we have control over.
So, when unfortunate events such as this one happen we first must question the role of our own will power or of our own actions. God did not kill that boy! As for God not intervening and not saving the boy miraculously... That's the whole point of this life: Our actions have consequences. It is up to us to determine MOST of our destiny. If God were to protect us from going astray and made us all to act the certain way, then we really would not be choosing things for ourselves, would we?

I hope I am making sense and I hope I am able to express what I have in my head. It is very clear in my head, yet not so easy to out it all in words.

With kind regards to you all!

Metin said...

V:

Perfect Sense!!!