Wednesday, 27 April 2016

Apologetics 4

I have some basic issues with religious set up.

The basic cosmological argument is that the universe is here, whence universe?, thus god. You could asked "who created god?" but there’s a more basic step. This is a problem of "as below, so above". This assumes there is an "outside of the universe", fine, but then assumes that the rules for "cause/effect" or "motion" that are in our universe also exist in outside the universe and thus needs an explanation. I don't see any reason for assuming that other than it makes your argument easier.

And then even if you get to a creator, that's just putting a label on an event, it doesn't imply Christianity.

Which reminds me of what annoys me about Christianity and any religion that relies on passing on knowledge… it relies on passing on knowledge! If we overnight forget about Moses and Jesus and Mohammad and all the others, and the religious texts disappeared… will we be able to work out that these people existed and we should believe in them and their messages? I can't buy that. Which means that we are screwed, according to them, as they are the ones who led us to salvation.

(As a side note, everyone is descended from Adam and Eve… and yet after the flood, this should mean that everyone is descended from Noah and his family, but no-one goes on about that.)

You want my take on a believable religion? Okay, picture a guy in a lab. He's sitting on a stool thinking. He's thinking about a universe that he's running in his head, mentally, from a Big Bang through to the Big Nothing. When he wants to, he can focus on a particular part in his mental model and change it if he wants. That guy is god.



No comments: