You donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mind using it when you cross a large expanse on a bridge (or in a tunnel under thousands of tons or water). IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m sure your faith is pretty convincing then Archie. Faith doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t always equal knowledge, but it can equal knowledge. So, if you wish do disagree, that is your right.
Sorry Ron, still disagreeing. If I have faith the bridge wont break that implies I don't know it.
That said I've never tried to say faith is a bad thing. If I didn't have faith in that bridge (or it's designer
) I might never cross it, which would be unfortunate.
Or we can more accurately interpret it as Ã¢â‚¬Å“Science will never knowÃ¢â‚¬Â in this material existence. But, there are many-many scientists who know this already.
Just to be sure we were both talking about the Big Bang still yes? Well, science may one day find out what came before the 'bang', or we may discover the whole theory is hogwash. Either way science is very likely to find out. Probably not in our lifetime, but hey, that's my faith.
No, Archie, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t avoid anything, it simply admits that we see the evidence of a great many things with out having to see the things themselves. And, we can see the evidences of God all around us without the ability to physically see Him. If you cannot get past that point, you will struggle with the weightier matter of where He came from. But, in the end, we WILL all find out.
Seeing a beautiful garden often denotes a gardener. However the most beautiful of gardens are those found growing wildly, without a tender.
"But, in the end, we WILL all find out" - Even as an atheist I still hope there is truth in this
we know that there had to be an initial causer. If you go back far enough, it is actually inevitable. You will likely attempt to argue infinite regress, but (as already been pointed out ad nauseam) that infinite regress is actually illogical. Therefore it is a red-herring. And, you will likely continue to use it.
My point here Ron was that I didn't ask a question, therefore there was no question to be a red-herring...anyway...
Infinite regress does inevitably cause a logical problem. But there are a couple of assumptions you've made that have led you to believe the initial causer is God. I'm not ruling that possibility out, but I also accept there may be other explanations.
Firstly, why does there have to be one
initial causer? What stops there being multiple?
Secondly our laws break down and fall apart at the point of singularity (just before the big bang). There is no reason to believe cause and effect still apply here.
And, if youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re going to equate individuals in a business with amino acids, then those amino acids arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t as simple or un-complex as you are pretending they are.
*Facepalm* That was the point of using something less complex Ron. To show that something simple can build something complex, then those slightly more complex things can build something even more complex. That's why I used the object orientated programming example (sorry, I've done some programming. Does everyone know what I'm talking about?).
Building a complex program straight off the bat is really really hard. But building smaller programs that do simple functions, then combining them together to do more complex things is a lot easier.
By the way, there is no business in this world that is as complex as the individuals that make it up. Even the Ã¢â‚¬Å“brainÃ¢â‚¬Â in one of the individuals that make it up, is far more complex then the most multifaceted business this world has to offer.
Ah...a business is made up of a lot of people, each of which have a brain. So a business is indeed more complex than an individual because it's made up a lots of them.
I totally agree Archie "The whole is greater than the sum of its partsÃ¢â‚¬Â. But, what drives those parts to create the whole, sustain the whole, and maintain the whole?
Good question Ron, what drives you to maintain the business you work for? Unless you're trying to pull it down from the inside