Critics say:
You can't DECIDE to believe in something.
You can't decide to believe that invisible pink elephants exist.
You can't decide to believe that invisible pink elephants exist.
You can't decide to believe that God exist.
You can delude yourself, but deep down you know it's not real.
That is all true, but you can decide to fairly evaluate the facts, evidence, and arguments to evaluate questions like:
You can't decide to believe that invisible pink elephants exist.
You can't decide to believe that invisible pink elephants exist.
You can't decide to believe that God exist.
You can delude yourself, but deep down you know it's not real.
That is all true, but you can decide to fairly evaluate the facts, evidence, and arguments to evaluate questions like:
1) Is reason the basis for all knowledge? If not reason, then what is it? Can you defend this sans reason?
2) Do you acknowledge that the inference to the best explanation is how most if not all field of inquiry gain knowledge? Meaning, the hypothesis or theory that best explains all [or most] of the data is held to be true.
3) What is reality, and how do you know?
4) What best explains the origin of physical reality?
5) What best explains the origin of information in DNA?
6) What best explains human reasoning?
7) What best explains morality?
8) Is there one hypothesis that best explains all of those questions?
One explanation would be a rational, extremely powerful, intelligent designer, moral person, existing outside the physical part of reality. What most would call God.
What is the naturalistic explanation for all of those things above?
No comments:
Post a Comment