I'm not comfortable making the case for faith based entirely on "evidence" or logical reasoning. It just can't be done. The counter-arguments you offered are similar to what I've thought of myself ... well, except for the quantum mechanics stuff. :-)
Note: Until you meaningfully incorporate "lighties" into your theory, I won't believe it. Then again, the "quantum entanglement" could easily be explained by lighties.
I believe there is a rational basis for belief. In other words, it's not entirely a "blind leap" decision. Yes, it's based on supposing certain things are true. Lots of things in life are that way.
* * *
I'm not so sure quantum mechanics necessarily leads to the conclusion that "no such God need exist." There are other questions hanging out there. For instance, the theory of "the Big Bang," where all things existed as a "singularity" and in a stable state until the actual event, the question must be asked: what (or who) initiated that change. Answers such as "it just did" or "there are infinite numbers of universes" or " it's a repeating cycle" are all, in my mind, not persuasive. Similarly, until someone comes up with a plausible explanation for the "cambrian explosion" -- where a plethora of new species appeared, seemingly without cause, which forced evolutionists to cobble up a theory about "punctuated equilibrium" -- there remains many questions about the creation of life.
I am not like you ... I have little faith in "science." I am happy to reap the benefits of it in terms of medicine and computers and such, but I do not elevate science -- or perhaps "reason" would be a better, more generic phrase -- as the answer or the solution. It has it's place; its place is not as God. And that's exactly what most people are doing with "reason."
I doubt we will ever come to any agreement on this. I hope the intensity of my response has not offended you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment