cyclohexane comments on What is your religion and what led you to identifying with / believing in it?

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml -4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Yes it is a scientific theory (not a hypothesis), which means it is the widely accepted explanation by scientists.

You're right that the theory is not about God, but explains the origins of the universe. What I said about God is what I think is a logical conclusion. If something has a beginning, then it must have been kickstarted somehow. What kickstarted it is by definition its creator. And this applies to our universe, in my opinion.

This does not reveal the nature of the creator or anything about them. It is merely a statement that they must exist. An effect must have a cause.

I apologize for sounding pretentious earlier, that was not my intention, but I can see how it came off as such. And apologize for misunderstanding your intentions as well.

Also I notice you have some downvotes. Just want to clarify that it is not me.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] sotolf@programming.dev 1 point 3 years ago

You're right that the theory is not about God, but explains the origins of the universe.

How so? I don't see what you mean here, it doesn't explain anything, it just builds a level of assumptions on top of something, basically explaining something with an untested hypothesis.

what I said about God is what I think is a logical conclusion.

If you Agree to the premises I guess, but I don't, so it explains nothing.

If something has a beginning, then it must have been kickstarted somehow.

Then who kickstarted god? Or does he/she/it for some reason get special treatment here? (This is special pleading)

What kickstarted it is by definition its creator.

If I kick a stone down a hill I did not create the stone even though I set it in motion.

And this applies to our universe, in my opinion.

Hmm, I don't see how you evade an infinite regression here, unless you break your own rules and give one link in the chain an "eternal always existing" modifier. We don't know that anything eternal exist, or even that our universe isn't eternal (extisting eternally as a singularity before spreading or a part of a bigger multiverse that we cannot perceive)

It is merely a statement that they must exist.

It is just assuming that something must exist, since you're building your logic on very shaky premises that we cannot prove.

An effect must have a cause.

Must it? Or have we just never seen the contrary (black swan fallacy) Who caused god? like I said before you can't get away from that without special pleading.