There because it is not necessary that there . There is a law of economy of concepts, not recent but very valuable, called "Ockham's razor " which, translated from the Latin ( pluralitas non est sine ponenda need ), says roughly: no need to seek solutions without complicated first try simple ones. There is another version, but the meaning does not change: non sunt Public multiplicanda ol necessitatem " ie "Do not multiply entities if there is no need to do it" .
So it is useless, it is expensive, is a waste of time, it is illogical to try to get an explanation if there is one difficult to reach the most simple and straightforward. A flower sprang up, because the laws of botany - and we know we can study! - Are made that way. What need is there to think that the flower will gradually become the will of a god?
It 's too easy to "god" as an answer to all questions. Life, the existence, nature are complex and often difficult to understand no previous training and without a study. This is difficult to achieve, we must study, must learn to think, you know many things and many scientists ... So "god" becomes a shortcut that avoids the whole thing. God is the way out of ignorance .
call god every pleasurable sensation, each benign view, every event successful. But we are the actors in the scene. Usually, we are ignorant of science probabilistic, and then we feel certain combinations of exceptional and fascinating life. Some are so fascinating exceptional and we believe that the impossible and then call them "miracles" and attach to a deity superior to us. And, without ever having seen or touched, we believe in a god. Religions are good at making this our deficiency and sensory information in "gifts" of faith, they say: God can not be touched and you feel but there is with faith and heart ... But what does it mean? Empty turns of phrase to "explain" the most skeptical that God exists despite not having evidence. Yet, it would be interesting to give that evidence of god! What god would accept being called into question even though all means to prove?
And then there is no god. Things happen and enough, it can not satisfy us, but it's true, that we give to things divine meanings and implications. The primitives did the same with lightning and volcanic eruptions, for them, lightning and eruptions were "proof" of divinity that spat fire and flames on the ground because it angry with humanity. Then someone explain what lightning is and why volcanoes erupt. And then we have changed his mind: the gods were not inside the volcanoes, or behind storm clouds, and we've moved up (the sign easier to be "greater"), before the mountains (think the gods of Olympus, even those a bit 'imperfect descending among men as if they were at home), then more and more about. In the end the gods have become invisible and perfect, so that they can not discuss on their lives (would have us believe that unless we see them is because they are invisible, not because there are ...) and not enough to achieve them close to investigate the matter.
final consideration. Often, those who believe in a God they think put the corner of rationality, saying, "Yes, it should be ', but before the Big Bang if there was no god?". Obviously, science has no answer for this, and if you have a case, is very careful to examine the congruence. In all cases, propose a god instead of the unknown "beginning of everything" does not improve things, a god who "has always existed", as well as unnecessarily complicating the search, not at all satisfactory, but only changes the name of ' dissatisfaction, you could always ask what it was before the god and it will go back up and over again. Might as well - if you will, "meanwhile" - consider that, since the Big Bang has also triggered the time, it makes no sense to ask what was "before" because there could be no time so no first .
It 'obvious that all these reasonable arguments do not convince the believers, who think that faith is a gift, but do not want to! The important thing is to think, think freely (ie without self-censorship and censorship) about these things, without gaps in ignorance. The rest should come by itself. More
reading "The universe it alters God?" » or The" intelligent design "
0 comments:
Post a Comment