Well, I know I said "soon enough" but I was busy. Busy, I tell you!
Right:
1. For people who voted "many gods" and "personal god":
When a theory is proposed, one needs to offer evidence to back it up. Just because there is no proof against your theory, doesn't make it true. For example, there's Russell's Teapot:
|
Quote:
|
|
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
|
Next, for those who say that the fact that the universe exists is itself proof of a God, the answer, is that it
might be. But it is most certainly not proof of a personal God. Why couldn't it just be some sort of primal energy/force, mindless "thing" as it were that created the universe? Why a living, benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient creature? In other words, why couldn't it be an impersonal God? I'll deal with that later.
Next, for those who think that this personal god/gods are described by religion: I find it really amazing that most religions have contradictions among themselves, and yet everybody manages to conveniently ignore them and go on with life. You do not need a God for some sort of spiritual "reassurance". How you find reassurance from something/someone that
might (with a very small probability, I might add) exist.
You do not need a God to be moral. If it is the fear of God that drives you to be good, then it's obvious that if God said "It's okay to have extramarital sex, it's okay to rape everyone." then you wouldn't find anything wrong with it. I, on the other hand, would. My code of morality is based on what is permissible by my mind, while yours is run by what is permitted by your God. For all those who think that atheists are immoral, then let me kindly point out, that I am a hell lot more moral than the Old Testament god.
2. For those who voted "Impersonal God"
I can understand your choice a lot more, because I can see the need to formulate an explanation for the existence of the universe. However, this is a rather redundant position, because it begs the question "What created the impersonal god?" Sort of like a "It's turtles all the way down." argument.
3. For those who voted for any of the other two:
I share your opinion, what more can I say?
Just remember, that there
might be a god. We can't say for sure.