We capitalize Proper names in the English language as a matter of clarity and communication like distinguishing the planet Earth from other meanings of the word earth. For a lot of scientific theories this isn’t needed most of the time. But in the case of the Big Bang we have another situation where the words have other meanings. The Big Bang is in fact not a big bang at all. It was not an explosion of material out into empty space but an expansion of space itself which initially didn’t even have any material. The theory is given this name because of some superficial similarities like an initially very hot beginning cooling down as it expands. It is the same situation with “God” and “god,” where we capitalize the one as a proper name to distinguish the singular God of monotheism, creator of all, from the species “god” referring to the many kinds of deities and spirits believed in by people around the world. In correct English this has nothing whatsoever to do with respect or worship but with clarity of meaning.
Clearly what is “obvious” to you is far from obvious to many many other people and that kind of makes the use of the word “obvious” a little inappropriate in this context. The fact is that you have no proof and no reasonable expectation that others should agree with you. Even talking to me who actually believes the same thing, that God created the universe, I do not see how it is obvious or that there is any proof. In your case it may simply be that you were raised to presume God existence as a foundation of how your mind works, but in my case it is a choice of faith which I make.
I have little doubt however that there are some fundamental differences between your thinking and mine despite this one commonality. For example while you may think that the universe and living things were made as a means to an end (with a purpose) like a bunch of dead tools, I believe that the universe and especially living things were made as an end in themselves motivated by love. So this is a case where I not only dispute that what you claim is not obvious but also that is just plain wrong.
Well I certainly believe there is thought behind this existence but what I claim is not that there is proof to the contrary but that there is no proof that this belief I happen to share with you is correct. Just because something is true doesn’t mean any half-baked argument for that truth is in any way consistent, sound or correct. This is easily demonstrated.
This is demonstrably incorrect. Explanations have been given which are not only quite logical but which have a very large quantity and variety of objective evidence to support it. Now I happen to think there is a God involved in all that as well, but there is no objective evidence for that belief whatsoever.
But this has been demonstrated quite conclusively. We can set up an evolutionary algorithm using random search methods to find designs for things which result in designs far superior to anything that human designers have ever come up with. The truth is that even though the universe is fundamentally random at its particulate base, there is a loose overarching order on top of that. Now for ME this points to a creator God who values love and freedom over power and control, but for others this points to a non-personal inanimate order which they call natural law as the origin of everything.
Because of Poe’s law I don’t think I could make fun of you even if I tried and some will think there is little difference between your sincerity and someone trying to make fun of you. That is what happens when you are determined to ignore the objective evidence because of what you have decided is “obvious.”
I certainly rely on faith but I do not rely on others with regards to thought without the test of considerable skepticism and that means I criticize everyone, even those I agree with most. Faith is the foundation of all knowledge for the simple fact of logic is that all conclusions rest upon premises accepted on faith. Thus I have explained numerous times that science certainly requires faith and that in modern times scientists are the best examples of faith to be found while religious people are generally of rather mediocre faith and unreliable by comparison. Blind faith which is rooted largely in fear and willful ignorance, is better described by Jesus’ words in Matthew 13 about those who close their eyes and ears refusing to see and hear, because blind faith is defined by the failure to acknowledge the objective evidence which anyone can verify by following the written procedures of science which give the same result no matter what you believe.
Life was created as life is always created which is by providing the right environment for growth and learning and not as machines with no life are created, by design and construction. What I refuse to believe in are the theologians who push a god of power and control creating a clockwork mechanism with no life so that they can turn religion into a tool of power and manipulation.
Yes all the things with no life which men have created are designed, but there are also farmers, shepherds, teachers, and parents who create living things which are not by design. Crops, livestock, graduating students, and children growing to adulthood would not exist without the work of those farmers, shepherds, teachers and parents but they were not designed by them. That is the difference between living and non-living things.
The evidence shows that living things are not designed but are a product of billions of years of learning. This is the ONLY reason that I can believe in God. For otherwise we are left with the conclusion that the creator is a inept bumbling incompetent guilty of a malevolent degree of neglegence.
Correct. The evidence exists for anyone to read about, but this will do no good if you simply refuse to see, hear, or read what you choose not to understand.
So in conclusion… what is the most essential difference here… we believe a few of the very same things regarding God having a role in the existence of the universe and living things even if we do not come to the belief in the same way. I think the difference is the intolerance of people who happen to believe differently than you and I. I know that both theists and atheists can be and often are very rational, thoughtful and morally motivated people even if they aren’t always so. And the difference is a matter of choice and faith as long as we keep away the intolerant who would push their way of thinking on others by force of law and violence (something we can find examples of among both Christians and atheists).