say what? (The atheist delusion)

by David Turell , Sunday, January 29, 2012, 18:03 (4463 days ago) @ scoobypoo

To posit that "believing" is just as rational as "not believing" is, IMHO, just silly.-I don't agree. Not believing in God takes just as much faith as believing.
> 
> You mention, among other things, that the complexity of the universe might reasonably lead one to "believe".
> 
> The flaw in that is simply that a creator would need to be more complex than the creation, and of course, the big one: where then, did the creator come from? If our complex universe requires a creator then so too does its creator and so on to infinity.-That the creator must be more complex is just atheist creed. How do we know that? Religious philosophers thru the ages have pictured God as very pure and simple. As for where the creator came from brings us back to the most famous question of all: Why is there anything? If there always was something eternal, it is energy. And then one has to ask, where did that come from, so we have infinite regression. To me that is not a very satisfying ending. Why should the energy exist? Obviously many philosophy books have been written, but I've never seen or read an adequate answer. 
>
> I think atheists likely have it right, but I refer to myself as agnostic simply because I don't claim I can prove that no god exists, but I see no "reason" for believing that one does. -That is dhw's position. I've tried but can't budge him off his picket fence. And I respect that. No one can absolutly prove God, nor disprove Him. As everyone here knows I follow Mortimer J. Adler: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Antony Flew finally accepted that approach. And so did the famous atheist scientist, Sir Fred Hoyle, as the science of cosmology unfolded: 'the universe looks like a put-up job'.
> 
> This is absolutely not the same thing as giving equal credulity to both sides of the fence, which is what seems to be the point in this forum (but I could be wrong about that).-What is wrong with equal credulity? That is best for an open discussion. I have my side, you have yours and lets discuss! Always polite, no invective. Dawkins gives us enough of that emptiness. Hope you will stay around and add to reasonable discussion.